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

[Michael Clark]

Agreed.
I think Canon mentioned 'a' Digic X processor in the R3, so I'm assuming one?

A two year cycle is around average for new Canon processors at the moment, no doubt we'll see a Digic 11 (XI) in the R1 next year, even multi XI processors.

Someone from Canon said in an interview a while back that DiG!C X is not so much a specific processing chip as it is an architecture. So all DiG!C X systems are not necessarily equal in much the same way that, say, all AMD Ryzen processors or Intel i7 processors are not equal.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

Only by someone who failed to read the posts with reasonable comprehension. The point of both posts was resolution (MP). File size (MB) was only mentioned (and not in the post you quoted) as a confirmation of the fact that JPG files were being discussed, not RAW files.

Your complete misinterpretation of @Marximusprime’s post doesn’t mean that post was correct. The comment to which he was replying correctly suggested that, because the files on which the 24 MP resolution suggested for the R3 is based are JPGs, they could be lower resolution (MP) than the sensor (whereas RAW files must be the resolution of the sensor, in terms of effective pixels). @Marximusprime may never have used downsampled (e.g., camera-produced M or S JPG files), but he in no way implied that a 45 MP JPG file must be 45 MB.

 

[Michael Clark]

Just curious, what are people's thoughts on why Canon has stayed quiet on the sensor resolution? For those thinking Canon strategically chose 24MP, why not disclose that with the rest of the marketing? Do you think there's a reason they've kept this bit of information elusive?

Canon has never included sensor resolution in a development announcement. Not one single time. Why are so many folks surprised they didn't do it with the R3?

 

[Michael Clark]

I will be surprised if they come up with high megapixel R1.

I will be even more surprised if they don't come up with any high mp body. I just expect it will be called something like R5s or R3s or possibly R2. If history is anything to go by, R1 will be first and foremost reliable and fast, the thing to have in big sports events, and high resolution is hard to combine with that.

Of course, "high resolution" is a relative term. I guess 45 mp would make sense so it could do 8K video. But I would not be surprised if it was 30 mp or even the same 24 mp as R3, especially if it indeed comes out within a year.

(main point here of course being to push this thread closer towards 1000 comments...)

The R3 is the 1D type sports body you're expecting the R1 to be. The R1 will be a higher resolution studio/fashion/portrait camera like the 1Ds was.

 

[Michael Clark]

If the 5DV doesn’t have an articulating screen, I would still wind up using my 6D2 a lot of the time anyway. So they need to figure out how to do that and retain the same level of weatherproofing, or they clearly don’t want my business.

(That’s the closest I can come to fitting in the current discussion.)

The 5D Mark V? It ain't happening, dude. Ever.

 

[Michael Clark]

If you have twice as many noise pixels but they are half the size each the result is the same amount of noise. It will be just as visible as less’ larger‘ noise.

Nah. Small drops of dark paint spread out over a large area of a brightly painted wall are far less noticeable than a few large blots of dark paint.

For human vision at normal display and viewing distances, the circle of confusion is about seven pixels wide for a camera with 4 µm sensels. If the noise stays below the CoC, then it's not noticeable at all at normal display size and distances.

 

[stevelee]

The 5D Mark V? It ain't happening, dude. Ever.

That’s another reason for me not to buy one.

 

[stevelee]

The 5D Mark V? It ain't happening, dude. Ever.

According to PetaPixel, Canon just raised the price on the Mark IV by $200, so I’m even less likely to buy one. If I really had wanted one, I should have bought it when it was selling for $1,900.

I keep coming back to the question of what equipment would improve my photography in real life. And I don’t find myself ever saying to myself, “I wish my camera would (or could) do . . . .” The closest I come is to imagine scenarios where I might take more landscapes if I had a medium format camera, and I haven’t convinced myself it is true, or even that in real life for me it would make that much of a difference. I did see that a tilt-shift lens is planned for the Fujifilm G series. Maybe that will change my mind if it comes out and the 100S becomes readily available. By then I probably will be concentrating on replacing my old Mac with a tricked out future model and forget photo equipment fantasies for a while.

I readily admit that there are better cameras than my 6D2, and I don’t begrudge those who use them or want them or even need them. And if the cameras had no interest to me at all, I wouldn’t be following these threads.

 

[koenkooi]

[..] And I don’t find myself ever saying to myself, “I wish my camera would (or could) do . . . .” [..]

I had that discussing during a workshop last week, about the progression of shots when encountering rare species. Get a shot first to have something to show, then try to get closer and get progressively better photos. The instructor mentioned "going through the aperture steps" and we wondered why there's no aperture bracketing function, like AEB.
WIth electronic shutter you can take a series of pictures, automatically stopping further down after each one, in a fraction of a second.

 

[Toglife_Anthony]

Canon has never included sensor resolution in a development announcement. Not one single time. Why are so many folks surprised they didn't do it with the R3?

I didn't say development announcement, I said marketing. I feel Canon was "pressured" to give more information regarding the R5 before the official announcement when they felt the narrative was being steered in the wrong direction. And just because Canon has "never" done something doesn't mean they can't change. For me it's not so much what I expected them to do, it's a "why not just confirm or refute" thing.

 

[unfocused]

I didn't say development announcement, I said marketing. I feel Canon was "pressured" to give more information regarding the R5 before the official announcement when they felt the narrative was being steered in the wrong direction. And just because Canon has "never" done something doesn't mean they can't change. For me it's not so much what I expected them to do, it's a "why not just confirm or refute" thing.

Back in the day when the XXD (and later the 7D) were the top selling enthusiast cameras and Canon was upping the sensor resolution with each successive generation, they did market the resolution. People on this forum used to complain that Canon sensors had too high of resolution and had too much noise as a result. A common meme was to compare Canon's higher resolution sensors unfavorably to Nikon's lower resolution sensors BTW.

These days, I don't think Canon really feels that sensor resolution is a big selling point unless it's unusually high. The R5 set a new standard for resolution in a Canon camera (not a record, but a standard) so Canon was more inclined to market the number. What benefit would there be for Canon to market a 24mp sensor, especially when there are so many other new and more impressive features to talk about in the R3?

As far as "confirming" the resolution, they have essentially done that. By giving a camera to Jeff Cable and encouraging him to post and blog about the camera, Canon knew the resolution would leak out. This has allowed the resolution to be a non-issue by the time the camera is actually announced.

 

[Toglife_Anthony]

Back in the day when the XXD (and later the 7D) were the top selling enthusiast cameras and Canon was upping the sensor resolution with each successive generation, they did market the resolution. People on this forum used to complain that Canon sensors had too high of resolution and had too much noise as a result. A common meme was to compare Canon's higher resolution sensors unfavorably to Nikon's lower resolution sensors BTW.

These days, I don't think Canon really feels that sensor resolution is a big selling point unless it's unusually high. The R5 set a new standard for resolution in a Canon camera (not a record, but a standard) so Canon was more inclined to market the number. What benefit would there be for Canon to market a 24mp sensor, especially when there are so many other new and more impressive features to talk about in the R3?

As far as "confirming" the resolution, they have essentially done that. By giving a camera to Jeff Cable and encouraging him to post and blog about the camera, Canon knew the resolution would leak out. This has allowed the resolution to be a non-issue by the time the camera is actually announced.

I would argue nothing is "confirmed" until an official announcement is made, but I get what you're saying. BTW I'm not saying they should market the resolution, I'm saying they could "officially" confirm it, the way they did - for example - confirming that 8K on the R5 would be without a crop. I'm not so sure the resolution is a non-issue amongst many; I've seen a lot of posts on forums and photog FB groups where folks are holding out hope that it will be more. I don't have that hope, but it seems many people are still waiting for the official announcement to put the sensor resolution to rest. We shall see soon.

 

[unfocused]

I would argue nothing is "confirmed" until an official announcement is made, but I get what you're saying. BTW I'm not saying they should market the resolution, I'm saying they could "officially" confirm it, the way they did - for example - confirming that 8K on the R5 would be without a crop. I'm not so sure the resolution is a non-issue amongst many; I've seen a lot of posts on forums and photog FB groups where folks are holding out hope that it will be more. I don't have that hope, but it seems many people are still waiting for the official announcement to put the sensor resolution to rest. We shall see soon.

Nonissue might have been a poor choice of words. What I meant is that by allowing the resolution to leak early, it won't be the focus of the post announcement buzz because it's not really news anymore. Yeah, it will be mentioned in the reviews and commentary, but it won't dominate the coverage.

 

[Marximusprime]

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

Yeah...I've never thought that MB equal MP. I constantly review file sizes and they're never the same "size" as the amount of megapixels.

 

[Eersel]

My great hope was for a 30 MP sensor again. Very nice middle ground in terms of resolution and Signal/noise…

 

[koenkooi]

The new Nokishita leak talks about 24.1MP.

 

[Michael Clark]

According to PetaPixel, Canon just raised the price on the Mark IV by $200, so I’m even less likely to buy one. If I really had wanted one, I should have bought it when it was selling for $1,900.

I keep coming back to the question of what equipment would improve my photography in real life. And I don’t find myself ever saying to myself, “I wish my camera would (or could) do . . . .” The closest I come is to imagine scenarios where I might take more landscapes if I had a medium format camera, and I haven’t convinced myself it is true, or even that in real life for me it would make that much of a difference. I did see that a tilt-shift lens is planned for the Fujifilm G series. Maybe that will change my mind if it comes out and the 100S becomes readily available. By then I probably will be concentrating on replacing my old Mac with a tricked out future model and forget photo equipment fantasies for a while.

I readily admit that there are better cameras than my 6D2, and I don’t begrudge those who use them or want them or even need them. And if the cameras had no interest to me at all, I wouldn’t be following these threads.

For me the biggest difference between the 5D Mark III and IV is flicker reduction. I still shoot under a lot of flickering lights in stadiums and gyms, though that is slowly beginning to change. It makes a huge difference in workflow. Without flicker reduction 6-7 of every 10 shots are unusable simply due to color shift from one side of the frame to the other unless you want to spend hours in post for a handful of images. With it greater than 9/10 are the exact same color and brightness and can be batch processed.

Just this year two of the high school stadiums I visit every other year with my local high school football team installed steady state LED lighting in their football stadiums. One is frustratingly dim, but the output is constant, full spectrum, and fairly easy to color balance. The other is brighter, but I haven't post-processed anything from it yet (just shot there this weekend). But they do like to strobe them on-off-on-off every time they score a touchdown. (At least until some kid on a visiting team goes into an epileptic seizure and sues the snot out of them.) As in totally off when any are off (every.single.light.at.the.same.time.) Not like colleges that have a pattern where there are always a few on while the others are off.

 

[Michael Clark]

I had that discussing during a workshop last week, about the progression of shots when encountering rare species. Get a shot first to have something to show, then try to get closer and get progressively better photos. The instructor mentioned "going through the aperture steps" and we wondered why there's no aperture bracketing function, like AEB.
WIth electronic shutter you can take a series of pictures, automatically stopping further down after each one, in a fraction of a second.

You can do it with most cameras that have AEB. Shoot either in Tv mode with manually set ISO and the only variable the camera can alter is Av. Another way to do it is program shift in P exposure mode.

 

[Michael Clark]

I didn't say development announcement, I said marketing. I feel Canon was "pressured" to give more information regarding the R5 before the official announcement when they felt the narrative was being steered in the wrong direction. And just because Canon has "never" done something doesn't mean they can't change. For me it's not so much what I expected them to do, it's a "why not just confirm or refute" thing.

For Canon, marketing doesn't begin until after the official announcement. Everything before that are development announcements.

 

[koenkooi]

You can do it with most cameras that have AEB. Shoot either in Tv mode with manually set ISO and the only variable the camera can alter is Av. Another way to do it is program shift in P exposure mode.

That is so obvious it hadn't occurred to me, thanks!