I'm perfectly able to admit when I'm wrong or when my logic is flawed, as unlike yourself I'm not perfect .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…..
Perhaps you'd be less irritating if you took a less condescending attitude when replying to people.
As you are so clever, perhaps you'll enlighten the world and explain why Canon apparently chose to limit the R3 to 24MP, when they could have used the R5 sensor?