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

Aug 7, 2018
353
305
I always use the smallest JPEGs, because I only use the JPEGs for previewing my photos in the Windows Explorer. The JPEGs out of the camera are pretty bad, no matter how I tweak the settings. So I am forced to use RAWs if I want to use the photo for anything other than Instagram.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

R1-7D

EOS RP
Jun 25, 2012
769
119
Canada
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.

Interesting.

Does anyone have anything to add to this?
 
Aug 7, 2018
353
305
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: koenkooi

tarjei99

EOS M50
Dec 27, 2013
49
39
"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.


They are probably using CRAW which tend to end up as around half the size of ordinary RAW.
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
455
566
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.
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.
 
Aug 7, 2018
353
305
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.
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?
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
455
566
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 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.
 
Aug 7, 2018
353
305
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 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Wilde

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,430
2,296
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.

The biggest piece of spyware ever...until Windows 10 came along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sean C

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,430
2,296
You should never use Windows 10 Home. Only Windows 10 Pro gives you enough control over the "telemetry".
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.)
 

Bahrd

Red herrings...
Jun 30, 2013
184
127
What would be the reason of testing the camera with artificially limited resolution knowing that the potential problems (overheating/AF speed and accuracy) could rather occur at the final (highest) resolution the sensor delivers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: definedphotography
Jul 20, 2021
2
6
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 )
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...
Will be very interesting to find out about ”the resolution trick” that has been mentioned. Wouldn’t surprise me of we can chose the resolution between perhaps 24 to 48MP... Lets hope for it! :))
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

drhuffman87

Eos R, RF24-105 F4L, RF85 F2, EF200 F2.8L II
Nov 5, 2020
34
48
www.drhuffmanphoto.com
May we please have some new rumors that new rumors will be coming soon? I think everyone on this site understands there is a high probability that the R3 will have 24mp lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

Cyborx

EOS 90D
Feb 3, 2019
126
111
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.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,882
1,029
UK
www.flickr.com
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.
We'll call you a troll if you keep spamming the boards with the same boring, repetitive nonsense.