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

[koenkooi]

[..]
For stills, I almost always shoot Raw, so I am spoiled by the after-the-fact color control I have with ACR. I did one half-hearted attempt at a custom color balance from shooting a white sheet of paper under the lights. Results didn’t seem any better than what I got from auto. Maybe a gray card would work better.
[..]

If you have a ColourChecker type of chart, you could film a short bit with that in frame. I haven't tried that myself, though

 

[st jack photography]

It's looking more and more like the R1 is going to be the high megapixel pro body (ala the 1Ds series) and the R3 is the faster but lower resolution sports body (ala the 1D series). If that's the case, then the sports body needs fps more than resolution, while the studio/fashion/landscape body needs max resolution more than high fps.

Your reply is what I was not seeing all along, that Canon would move the 1D "sports" concept to R3 and then make an R1 that is the equivalent of a 5DSr merged with a mirrorless 1D concept. I can say I loved my 5DSr IN THE STUDIO, but I hated it on the street, so maybe this time around it have better ISO. I am not sure I would buy a megapixel monster again as my sole camera, but it makes sense for Canon to do what you describe. The 5DSr should have been in a bigger body, not shoe-horned into a 5D body (IMO). So I like your reasoning. I bought an r5 a few months back after waiting (what felt like forever) on the supposed mirrorless 5DSr. I may go with the r3 instead of a high megapixel camera, but I wish Canon would share more info, so I could plan better. Money is tight for me.

 

[unfocused]

You can use cash to purchase single use debit/gift cards, spend them via paypal, and no one knows who bought the item. It's the cash equivalent of a burner phone.

The question wasn't "How can I cheat on my taxes?"

The question was "How do you document your online purchases so you can prove you paid sales taxes on them?"

If people want to go to that extent to launder their purchases, they are probably doing a lot of other illegal things as well. Of course, it might raise some eyebrows if you waltzed into the the local Walgreens with $5,000 in cash and started buying debit cards.

 

[stevelee]

Doesn’t the seller give you a receipt in email or something that itemizes tax and shipping charges?

 

[unfocused]

Doesn’t the seller give you a receipt in email or something that itemizes tax and shipping charges?

Of course.

But, the original discussion involved demonstrating that you did not make any purchases where sales taxes were not collected.

Receipts would show that sales taxes were collected on an individual purchase, but they don't provide a comprehensive record of all your online purchases for the year.

"If," and granted it is a big "if," but "if" you were unlucky and got pulled for a random audit by your state and you needed to show that you had not made any purchases where sales taxes were not collected, your state can look at your credit card and debit card records which list every purchase you make on the cards for the year and it would be easy to show that every one of the vendors you purchased from collected sales taxes. A few years back this was a bigger issue than today. These days, virtually all U.S. based online sellers collect sales taxes (even eBay collects taxes). The main exception that I am aware of for photo equipment is if people buy from vendors who are based outside the U.S.

Now sure, if you were a crook and you laundered purchases as @Michael Clark suggested, you might get away with avoiding sales taxes. But, the point was never to show how to be a tax cheat. My point was proving you were honest, not showing how to be a crook.

 

[stevelee]

You could provide your credit card statements and suggest they find some other purchases, I guess.

But we are talking about state governments. They are unlikely to have resources to chase down every rabbit, especially if they have no evidence.

In NC you can report just the untaxed purchases of over $1,000 each and then take a tiny set amount to cover the rest. I used to pay that formula amount, but now that everybody I deal with charges the tax, I don’t even pay that.

 

[H. Jones]

A look at the R3's shell courtesy of Canon USA on Instagram:

 

[emailfortom]

Dang... I would love to put that on a tee shirt!

 

[tapanit]

A look at the R3's shell courtesy of Canon USA on Instagram:

View attachment 199668

That's cool. Unfortunately I can't count the pixels in R3's sensor from that image. Especially since the sensor isn't in the picture.

 

[SteveC]

That's cool. Unfortunately I can't count the pixels in R3's sensor from that image. Especially since the sensor isn't in the picture.

That reminds me of how my dad used to sarcastically rave about how awesome the TVs in the ads looked--displayed on the TV they were supposedly better than.

 

[Michael Clark]

The question wasn't "How can I cheat on my taxes?"

The question was "How do you document your online purchases so you can prove you paid sales taxes on them?"

If people want to go to that extent to launder their purchases, they are probably doing a lot of other illegal things as well. Of course, it might raise some eyebrows if you waltzed into the the local Walgreens with $5,000 in cash and started buying debit cards.

My apologies, I thought you were more addressing "How do the feds and state tax collectors know I bought this online and didn't pay sales tax?"

 

[Michael Clark]

Wow! I knew that Covid was messing with my sense of time but... Has it really been 21 years since the R5 came out? Feels like just yesterday...

I think a lot of people ready to give mirrorless a shot were really pleased with the release of the R5. Possibly some people who had just purchased the 1DXiii were a little less enthusiastic.

I know Canon doesn't do this but it would be so nice if they shared more information about upcoming gear with customers so we can plan ahead and get the gear that is the best fit for our individual styles.

Thanks for catching that. I've since edited it.

 

[unfocused]

My apologies, I thought you were more addressing "How do the feds and state tax collectors know I bought this online and didn't pay sales tax?"

My apologies if I was too harsh. Sometimes we get involved in internet debates and it's too easy to come off as harsh.

No, I was just responding to someone who seemed to think it would be burdensome to demonstrate that you had paid taxes. Of course, this is all pretty much moot these days since almost all online sellers are collecting sales taxes anyway.

 

[Michael Clark]

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...

Unless it has recently changed, Canon doesn't ship anything from Japan in retail boxes. That's done at the regional level where locally sourced boxes, printed materials, etc. are combined with other products coming from other sources (camera straps, batteries, chargers, etc., which, even if made in Japan, are from different plants and shipped to the regionals separately). They're shipped in bulk packaging from the camera or lens factories to the regionals throughout the world.

In the past, firmware has been known to have been updated by staff at the regionals prior to placing camera bodies in retail packaging.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

Surely you don't think every 45MP image is also a 45 MB JPEG file? Or that every 20 MP image is also a 20 MB JPEG file?

 

[Michael Clark]

Once the 1D4 was removed from supported status, what other options did pro users have except the 1DX? The 5D2 wasn't in the same class in terms of ruggedness and performance.

I'd say the 1DX series succeeded despite its specs, not because of. Simply because there was no other in-system alternative.

The 5D Mark III, which improved in a lot of ways compared to the 5D Mark II as a camera usable by imaging professionals, especially in terms of AF and handling speed, released the same year as the 1D X: 2012.

The choice in 2012 was not between the 1D X or the 2008 vintage 5D Mark II, it was between the 2012 1D X and the 2012 5D Mark III. There were a lot of pro shooters (wedding, event, studio, etc.) who did transition from the 1Ds Mark III to the 5D Mark III instead of the 1D X.

I'm not sure what you think the problem was going from the 16 MP 1D Mark IV to the 18 MP 1D X was. The 1D X was an improvement over the APS-H 1D Mark IV in pretty much every metric that matters to sports/action/reportage shooters. It was faster, higher resolution, and Full Frame.

The 1Ds series had always been the slower, higher resolution FF model compared to the faster, APS-H 1D series.

It should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it critically that the 5D Mark III was in many ways the successor to the 1Ds Mark III at the same time the 1D X was the successor to the 1D Mark IV.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Surely you don't think every 45MP image is also a 45 MB JPEG file? Or that every 20 MP image is also a 20 MB JPEG file?

Surely not, since nothing about @Marximusprime’s post suggested that thought.

 

[unfocused]

Unless it has recently changed, Canon doesn't ship anything from Japan in retail boxes. That's done at the regional level where locally sourced boxes, printed materials, etc. are combined with other products coming from other sources (camera straps, batteries, chargers, etc., which, even if made in Japan, are from different plants and shipped to the regionals separately). They're shipped in bulk packaging from the camera or lens factories to the regionals throughout the world.

In the past, firmware has been known to have been updated by staff at the regionals prior to placing camera bodies in retail packaging.

I'd like to know your source for this. The instruction manual packaged with my R5 was printed in China and the instruction manual that came with my 1Dx III was printed in Japan, so your claim of "locally sourced" printed materials is obviously wrong. The box my R5 came in is printed in seven languages, clearly designed to be used in multiple countries. The box my 100-500 came in is printed in 10 languages. The warning on the inside wrapping that says don't stick your kid's head in it is printed in eight languages. Obviously, all these packaging materials are printed at one location and used worldwide.

It would be ridiculously inefficient to package cameras in temporary shipping boxes, send them halfway across the world to the U.S. only to have that camera unpackaged and re-boxed in the U.S. where labor costs are much higher. It's even more implausible that Canon would unbox thousands of cameras once shipped and manually update firmware.

Unless you can cite a reliable source I call B.S. on this.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'd like to know your source for this. The instruction manual packaged with my R5 was printed in China and the instruction manual that came with my 1Dx III was printed in Japan, so your claim of "locally sourced" printed materials is obviously wrong. The box my R5 came in is printed in seven languages, clearly designed to be used in multiple countries. The box my 100-500 came in is printed in 10 languages. The warning on the inside wrapping that says don't stick your kid's head in it is printed in eight languages. Obviously, all these packaging materials are printed at one location and used worldwide.

It would be ridiculously inefficient to package cameras in temporary shipping boxes, send them halfway across the world to the U.S. only to have that camera unpackaged and re-boxed in the U.S. where labor costs are much higher. It's even more implausible that Canon would unbox thousands of cameras once shipped and manually update firmware.

Unless you can cite a reliable source I call B.S. on this.

It has been more than a few years, which is why I qualified my comment with "Unless it has changed." At the time in the late 2000s, someone I met at a trade show through a friend said he was doing firmware updates at a warehouse on Long Island used by Canon USA. It was near JFK. At the time Canon USA was still headquartered near JFK at Lake Success, before they opened the new HQ further east in Melville. He said they came in with multiple bodies packed in custom shipping cases. The empty cases would be shipped back to Japan for reuse. What he described was similar to the way many electrical automotive components are shipped (which I dealt with extensively in the logistics field back in the 1990s). Those look like really big Pelican type cases with custom foam interiors.

I've dug out some of my boxes and looked at the documentation. It's interesting that most of it has been printed in Japan, but some has also been printed in the U.S. It's not in any kind of time sequence, either. My EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II stuff was all printed in Japan. I bought it in August, 2010 only a few months after it was introduced early that same year. An EF 17-40mm f/4 L that I got in late 2012 had a fold-out instruction sheet in multiple languages printed in the USA. So did an EF 100mm f/2 bought in 2016. The documentation with an EF 135mm f/2 L bought in 2017 was printed in Japan. The date code on the 17-40 (UA0416) indicates it was made at Utsunomiya in April, 2012, and is part of the 16th revision of that lens since it was introduced in 2003. The date code of the 135 indicates it was made at Utsunomiya in September, 2016. My EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L, bought in 2012 (right after the replacement was announced for $1K more) was made in January, 2012 so was apparently one of the last ones made. The documentation with it, still sealed in the plastic bag, has printed in Japan on the back page that is visible. The box appears to have been made in China (PRC).

All of the manuals I have were printed in Japan, but a few of the advertisements/promotions that came sealed in the same plastic bag with the manuals and software CDs were printed in the USA.

Believe whatever you want.

 

[Michael Clark]

Surely not, since nothing about @Marximusprime’s post suggested that thought.

Considering the comment to which he was directly replying, which discussed file sizes in MB, it can be fairly reasonably inferred.