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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
I have three bodies. For most of my work, I carried the 5D and R. When shooting sports, it was the 1d and the 5D. With three bodies I need two bags since some days I'll be shooting with the 5D and R during the day and then switching to the 1D and 5D for sports in the afternoon or evening. There are features of the R that I prefer for shooting events (mostly the thumb control focus). But the R sucks for sports.

It's a pain in the butt to lug everything around and switch lens systems back and forth. I now have the R5 and could get by with that and the R for non-sports shooting, but I still need the 1D for sports. So, for me, the idea of an R3 that would allow me to dump both the 1D and the R and get back to only carrying two bodies and one set of lenses is very appealing. I've gotten spoiled by the 45mp of the R5 and the 30mp of the R, so I was hoping for a little higher resolution in the R3. Still, as I said I'm coming to grips with the lower resolution which will still be higher than the 1D. I realize I'm a unique case, but you asked.

I'm in a similar place even though I'm still using only EF bodies and lenses. For outdoor events/whatever in daylight and sports even under lights or in gyms I tend to use a 7D Mark II with the 70-200/2.8 and the 5D Mark IV with a 24-105/4 or 24-70/2.8. Indoors or at night for anything other than sports I switch to using the 5D Mark IV as my "long" body and a 5D Mark III as my "wide" body. Depending upon just how dark, the long lens will be the 70-200/2.8 or a 135/2. Wider lenses will be the 24-70/2.8 or 35/2, 50/1.4, 851.8 primes.

So if I shoot an outdoor event in the afternoon and then shoot an indoor concert in the evening I have to take the 5D Mark III out of my second bag and put either the 24-70/2.8 (possibly from the 5D Mark IV) or a prime out of my main bag on it (and another prime in a cargo pocket) and then put the 70-200/2.8 or 135/2 on the 5D Mark IV and move the 7D Mark II body along with the 24-105/4 if that was on the 5D Mark IV, to the second bag.

All of this is usually done while stooping over and leaning into my car's trunk while praying no potential thieves see what I'm doing and want what I leave behind.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
Is it possible that Canon has sent out R3 bodies with different MP's in them!. So the "testers" at the Olympics to try out and report back ?

Hence why they haven't disclosed what it is yet!!

Remember that is an exif data from just 1 camera out of xxxx!

I've been wondering whether or not it's possible that Canon is testing 2 different sensors. That would also explain why they've been so secretive about the sensor resolution.

They have field tested pre-production bodies with different resolutions before, but that was much earlier in the development stages of those cameras and not used at high profile events like the Olympics. If they were still deciding sensor resolution then it will be late next year at the earliest before it would be available, not this fall as expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kaihp

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
The R5 is just an amazing camera. I'm still in awe of it every time I shoot with it. I don't even see how they could charge $4500 for it considering the biggest things this camera has going for it are +10 fps and a bigger battery bay..........but that's at the cost of half the resolution and a myriad of video features. Then you realize it will most likely cost closer to $6000 and you have to laugh. Kinda lame honestly, IMHO.


A lot of people here keep taking exception to others comparing this to the A1. It's a valid comparison because that camera has been released for nearly six months. What they don't realize is that Canon's own release from a year ago makes this camera look bad too. Shame, really.

Anyone who has never shot sports/action with Big Whites fails to understand how much difference the larger battery with higher voltage makes in terms of AF speed with large lenses having heavier AF elements when compared to similarly spec'd cameras with lower voltage batteries. It can often be the difference between keeping up with the subject or not during continuous tracking in continuous drive mode.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
I am a professional bird and wildlife photographer that takes 1000+ photographers out in the field on tours each year and I have been doing it for over 20 years. I am not sure where your "...but those are the minority." data came from, but from what I have seen over the years there are a lot of people in the world with a lot of money and they switch systems and shoot multiple systems. Since Sony came out with the a9, then the a9II, and now the a1 I have seem many of my repeat clients switch from Nikon and Canon to Sony. Many of these folks shot the other systems for many years and where highly invested in those system. This is just one example. These people are not just professionals, but also enthusiasts. There is inertia as you put it, but also thousands of people who go with the flow and switch systems to meet their desires. Within the realm of bird and wildlife photographers, I am not sure those who switch systems or shoot multiple system are a minority, but instead may be closer to the majority, and there are a lot of wildlife photographers out here with more joining their ranks every day. Just one persons somewhat educated perspective.

You kind of make Goldwing's point. Those who are switching are not, for the most part, professionals who earn their living by selling photographs. It sounds like even you might be more of a professional photography teacher who makes a good portion, maybe even the majority, of your income from the tours you conduct, rather than from the photos you license to commercial clients.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
Tbh i have a feeling that the 30fps will be much more of a marketing gimmick than a practical tool for a while, mainly because of the lenses, or the focusing motors in lenses to be more precise.
If you look at the R5/R6 manual you'll see several lists, one for EF and one for RF glass, listing their support of high frame rates. given that most relevant EF glass peaks out at 12 fps, only several RF lenses currently support 20 fps, and even that, only wide open and only above certain battery charge levels (i'm assuming this is related to output voltage).

Careful, don't confuse them with facts.

On top of that - given that you cant really use teleconverters on RF 70-200's, or lack any telephotos except the 100-500 zoom, and have no 300, 400, 500, 600, 800 L primes coming anytime soon professional sports/wildlife/action photographers will have quite a useless 30fps spec on their 7k$ cameras.

It ain't gonna be $7,000 USD. It's going to be priced close enough to the α9II to be competitive.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
Why are they useless? What stops all lenses to work at 30fps fully open? Also aren't EF lenses supposed to work OK with 1DxIII? So 16fps must be doable with many modern big white EF lenses.

All EF lenses are supposed to work at least as well on RF mount cameras as they work on EF mount cameras. They're not necessarily supposed to work as well as RF lenses on RF mount cameras.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
When you're a professional photo journalist, action, or sports photographer; switching to a rival camera system is the option. The gear is paid for on your first or second assignment. The semi-pro and enthusiast crowd own pro bodies as a luxury item.

I'm glad to hear your day rate is a lot higher than what many of my friends who once were former staffers at major (and minor) newspapers using company equipment are now getting paid to shoot sports with their own gear on spec these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
I know I am the exception, but I've never found the ergonomics of the 1 series to be that much superior to the five or seven series, especially if you choose to add a grip. In fact, the older I get the more I like not having to lug around the extra weight of a 1 series body. Part of it, I know, is just the way I shoot. After decades of using film cameras, my muscle memory is so accustomed to leaving my hands in the same place when I switch to vertical, so I find the vertical controls on the 1 series and grips to be useless for me.

I used to shoot portrait mode that way until I ruined my right rotator cuff. Now I can't really shoot vertical without a grip. Even on days I have the range of motion, which isn't very often, I don't have the stability I need in that position.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
Confirmed 24 MP makes this push a wee bit ahead of the 45MP+ Z9 in my opinion. But it is still going to depend on what the big boy lenses look like on both. Nikon seem to have all new 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 instead of 'old' lenses with built in adaptors.
It seems to me the EF 600mm f/4L IS III and EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III released in 2018 could just as well have been purpose built RF lenses with shortened rear barrels. They're pretty much totally new optical designs compared to the II versions of both those lenses.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
995
1,044
Scotland
It seems to me the EF 600mm f/4L IS III and EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III released in 2018 could just as well have been purpose built RF lenses with shortened rear barrels. They're pretty much totally new optical designs compared to the II versions of both those lenses.

Note the single quotation marks around old. However, they are clearly not RF native designs. I don’t believe like some that making all new designs so soon after release is necessary nor required, but I also expect designing for RF from the get go will produce lenses that better match the RF design.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
440
477
UK
By your logic, there’s no reason Canon couldn’t have fitted a 50 MP sensor (the 5Ds/R launched just before the 1D X II) into the 1D X III.

When they limited the 1D X III to 20 MP, that must only have been done as a product differentiation tactic to make people crave the _________. (Since this is your logic, you should have no trouble filling in that blank for us.)
Typical neuroanatomist condescending reply.

There's a simple and obvious reason why the 50MP sensor from the 5DS wasn't put into the IDxiii.
It simply wasn't good enough for the applications the ID series are primarily aimed at, i.e. reportage, sports and wildlife, in low-light / high ISO conditions.
Photographers using the 1D series typically shoot at high ISO, but the 5DS (I owned one) was crap at anything over ISO 1000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
440
477
UK
I'm not sure Canon cares. Canon may figure they already have that group covered with the R5, which many reviewers have said is the best bird and wildlife camera ever.
Yes you may be right, the R5 has the resolution covered and meets most of the requirements of wildlife photographers - although I could suggest a few basic improvements (and have passed my comments to Canon).
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
459
574
It seems to me the EF 600mm f/4L IS III and EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III released in 2018 could just as well have been purpose built RF lenses with shortened rear barrels. They're pretty much totally new optical designs compared to the II versions of both those lenses.
Canon has said that these lenses were not designed for RF. They have also said that they released the RF versions of these lenses by popular demand, but that this was not the original plan. Presumably that means that more telephotos that were planned are still being actively worked on.
There was a thread covering this on Canon Rumors, and here is the source:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,301
975
Yorkshire, England
It simply wasn't good enough for the applications the ID series are primarily aimed at, i.e. reportage, sports and wildlife, in low-light / high ISO conditions.
Photographers using the 1D series typically shoot at high ISO, but the 5DS (I owned one) was crap at anything over ISO 1000.
Not when you downsample to the same 20mp as the 1D it isn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
440
477
UK
At least one. I can process an image faster and better in Adobe Camera Raw than I can in Photoshop and I never have to worry about color balance when shooting indoor sports, as I can adjust it easily in raw.
It's often stated that among the prime requirements of sports and reportage photographers, is the ability to have small file sizes that can be rapidly transmitted straight to the picture desk - and that means JPEGs (or possibly low-res CR3 RAWs). That's what I hear and read regularly, so I'm guessing it's true.

I think you must be one of the few who shoot RAW for sports (I'm more than happy to be corrected :) ).

If you do your own processing in ACR, it implies that your work is non-urgent....
Is your photography for your own use, rather than for instant publication on the media?
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
440
477
UK
what a pity for birders. I´ll stay with my R5...

But what is following? R1 with 20MPix, as professionals do not need more?
I hope for an high MPix R5 or R3 for birders.
Yes, a higher MP for the R3 would indeed be valued by wildlife and BIF photographers, and probably sports and reportage photographers too.

But R5? Seriously? You need more than 45MP?

I see the "R5s" with its rumoured 90MP as being a studio, advertising and landscape camera, not a sports or wildlife camera. It's unlikely to achieve more than 6-8fps.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,056
4,619
Typical neuroanatomist condescending reply.

There's a simple and obvious reason why the 50MP sensor from the 5DS wasn't put into the IDxiii.
It simply wasn't good enough for the applications the ID series are primarily aimed at, i.e. reportage, sports and wildlife, in low-light / high ISO conditions.
Photographers using the 1D series typically shoot at high ISO, but the 5DS (I owned one) was crap at anything over ISO 1000.
Read more carefully. I didn’t say they should have used the 5Ds/R sensor in the 1D X III, I said give it 50 MP. Just as when you suggested they could have given the R3 a 45 MP sensor, I didn’t assume you were suggesting they just reuse the R5 sensor and it’s traditional architecture rather than making it a stacked, BSI sensor like the R3 will have. But maybe that was giving you too much credit.

Given that the R5 launched not long after the 1D X III, the better architecture found in the R5 sensor was being developed concurrently with the 1D X III. Also, as @Sporgon pointed out (and you acknowledged), downsampling the image would eliminate the concern of high ISO even has they used an older architecture as in the 5Ds/R sensor. I trust you recall that your argument for a high-MP R3 was based on downsampling…

So, will you be the typical forum dweller unable to admit when they were wrong or their logic was flawed? Or will you continue to maintain that the only reason they didn’t make a high MP R3 (assuming the 24 MP spec is true) is as a differentiation tactic to push R1 sales (assuming the R1 has substantially higher MP)? In the latter case, I’m still waiting for you to fill in that blank…..