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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,310
3,852
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
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

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,787
4,187
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

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,150
854
Davidson, NC
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

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,860
1,787
[..] 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

Hit the G.A.S. & pump the brakes at the same time!
Apr 2, 2020
58
75
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.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,310
3,852
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Toglife_Anthony

Hit the G.A.S. & pump the brakes at the same time!
Apr 2, 2020
58
75
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

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,310
3,852
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
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.