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

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,523
5,780
24mp is not in any way a limitation on 4k video quality. The Sony A7 III has sharp, detailed 4k output and its sensor is exactly 6,000 x 4,000 pixels. The difference between that camera and older Canon 24mp bodies lies in the fact that the A7 III reads out the entire sensor then scales it to 4k (oversampling). The Canon bodies typically read out a crop and often have to scale up to 4k. Canon typically isn't even reading out a 1:1 4k center!

The EOS M using Magic Lantern can generate sharp 2.5k which scales nicely to 4k because it's reading 1:1. It's a severe crop, but it works. Likewise the 5D mark III can produce gorgeous 3.5k using Magic Lantern with a Super35 crop because, again, it's a 1:1 read. You want to oversample or read out 1:1. 4k gets mushy when you pixel bin, line skip, etc. due to performance limitations at the sensor or CPU. On a lot of bodies Canon got stuck doing exactly that due to performance issues and being forced to impose a crop, but not wanting to impose a severe one.

The R6 has some of the best 4k IQ out there because it's also oversampling. The R3 will have no quality issues with 4k video. Thermal issues? Let's hope Canon solved those.
The R6 4K isn't DCI, it it 3,840 not 4,096. I can’t imagine the R3 will not be DCI standard 4K.

I'm not saying the R3 isn’t exactly 6,000 x 4,000, I just used the video numbers as a possible support for Neuro’s idea that the EXIF might be ‘manipulated’ in the pre release cameras currently out there.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,481
2,346
I'm not buying it.

I'm not buying those numbers.
Hey, 6,000 by 4,000 makes 24,000,000 pixels, 24.000000 MP.
Anybody ever seen a camera with resolutions this "round"?

In a decimal world, 6000 and 4000 might make sense, but we're living in a digital world where those numbers are not good. In a digital world 6144 by 4096 would make sense, but not those decimally-round numbers.

No, I'm not buying it. This has got to be firmware-modified numbers.

As I've said before the JPEGs out of my T6i and my M50 are 6000x4000.

Someone else pointed out that the sensor probably has "overhead" pixels and isn't truly that exact size, but to my mind that makes no difference; the size of the output is what matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
526
510
Do you have examples of where completely random non divisible numbers of horizontal pixels are translated easily into top quality 4K?

i just did a quick search and didn’t but I am no video expert.
Integer conversion is easier, but actually not by that much because you need a fair number of filter taps to prevent aliasing. The difference with random scaling is that the coefficients for the filter are dynamic, so there is one more look-up table involved. The MJPEG images from the R5 have a pair of 11s in the coefficients. That makes the conversion from the raw (which is a power of two) pretty much random and the R5 can spit out MJPEGS just about as fast as video. There is also the option of a small crop to make the numbers fit better, which is a pretty common approach.
 
Last edited:

landon

EOS 90D
Jul 26, 2020
173
232
Canon's sin here is making a good looking Pro camera that is small enough to fit in a backpack. Enthusiasts want to buy it for GAS, but need better MPs to justify the purchase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bundu

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,481
2,346
I'm curious, and I hope some folks will reply. On all of these R3 threads of late, I see many users comment on how they already have an R5, but were hoping to get the R3. In some case, perhaps, to replace the R5, a camera that they bought only in the past year and costs almost $4000. I guess I don't understand why an R5 owner would want an R3. Is there something about the R5 that doesn't suit your needs that an R3 would? Is it the integrated grip? The more rugged build? Just the fact that you want the latest and greatest? Curious minds don't quite get it, especially for those looking for an MP count closer to the R5. Wouldn't the R3 just be a more expensive version of the camera you already own, with little or difference in actual functionality or results?

I agree, I don't see why I should just dump my R5 for this camera...regardless of its resolution. I don't have a "gotta have the latest and greatest" gene, I guess.

Now if one doesn't have an R5 at all, and is looking at what to buy today, that's a different story.
 

rick1

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 8, 2016
65
36
How many people are 'deciding between the Sony a1 and the Canon R3, really? Do people just think, gee, photography sounds neat, I'll buy a camera and lenses kit costing north of $10K? Doubtful. If you have a bunch of Canon lenses or a bunch of Sony lenses, there's inertia there. Canon users mostly stay Canon, Sony users mostly stay Sony. Yes, people switch – but those are the minority.

The 'market' is probably not current 1D X III owners, but rather 1D X II or 1D X owners looking to upgrade.
I am in the market for a sony a1 or canon r3. I shoot both brands currently(a9ii and R5), I was waiting for the R3 to ditch sony completely although with the R3 coming in at 24mp, that's not happening :(
 

reef58

EOS RP
CR Pro
Apr 16, 2016
423
409
North Carolina
youtu.be
This is a new generation. Using that logic you could say "they sell plenty of 5d Mark4s at 30mp). Previous generation cameras should not be the benchmark. The industry competition should be the benchmark. 24mp for a $6000 camera is pathetic
The business they are in is selling cameras. If the 5d4 sell well and it still does what is wrong with that. Also people always pick out the best specs from the competition without mentioning the issues with said camera. Each brand has strength and weaknesses. I happen to enjoy the Canon eco system, but if I were in Sony or Nikon I would probably be just as happy. Why does each camera introduced have to satisfy each and every person? You have the R5 with plenty of MP and 20fps, you will have the R3 with 24mp and 30fps. I will concede they have 4 full frame models less than 30 mp. Not every camera can be 40+MP. They have the R1 coming along with the rumored high mega pixel camera.
 

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
554
581
www.diossiphotography.com
With this being a 24mp sensor, I would now anticipate the price to be along the lines of the A9, so $4500-5000. If that’s the case, I’ll be very excited. However, I am a little hesitant to spend $6k on a camera again when the R5 is doing better than my 1DXII ever did for me, sans build.
 

juststeve

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 29, 2018
73
108
Integer conversion is easier, but actually not by that much because you need a fair number of filter taps to prevent aliasing. The difference with random scaling is that the coefficients for the filter are dynamic, so there is one more look-up table involved. The MJPEG images from the R5 have the prime number 121 in the coefficients. That makes the conversion from the raw (which is a power of two) pretty much random and the R5 can spit out MJPEGS just about as fast as video. There is also the option of a small crop to make the numbers fit better, which is a pretty common approach.
121 is not a prime number. 11 times 11. So what is the point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jfr0317

reef58

EOS RP
CR Pro
Apr 16, 2016
423
409
North Carolina
youtu.be
I agree. The Sony A1 flagship has 60mp and why is Canon releasing a 24mp camera at a reported $6K. If sports photographers need low resolution, then a dumbed-down camera would work. It just doesn't seem realistic to sell an almost flagship camera with 10-year-old resolution?
For a person willing to pay $6500 for a 1dxiii right now, you are right. They won't mind paying $6000 for a 24mp camera. For the rest of the market, and people trying to decide between the sony a1 and the canon r3, no, they will not be happy paying $6k for a 24mp camera
That is the market. Most people (guessing) probably 99% are not buying a 6k camera no matter whether it be 20mp or 100mp. People seem to act like the R5 doesn't exist.
 

SNJ Ops

EOS M50
Jul 27, 2021
38
33
If the R3 does in deed come in at 24mp there’s nothing wrong with that per se as its going head to head with the A9II.

What I think is the real mistake is not having 2 CF express card slots so pros can shoot redundant at equal speeds.

Also I say again that an R3R should have also been developed and released at the same time to head off the A1 and upcoming Z9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
526
510
The original quote is Carthago delenda est, Carthage must be destroyed, from the Roman troll Cato. But, I suppose Canon delendam est, Canon destroyed, does accurately sum up some of the comments here. Though, there are no doubt some S... trolls who would approve Canon delenda est. I wish I had learned Spanish or German or Italian as a schoolboy rather than Latin.
A solid background in Latin makes other languages (including English) much easier to learn. Be thankful for your education that kids today don't get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,080
538
The A9 outputs at exactly 6000x4000. Although I agree that it would be an odd resolution for Canon as they typically do 4096 DCI video vs the 3840 UHD standard.
Ok...and as others are pointing out, Canon does have an APS-C sensor that they have used (80D, M50, etc) that is exactly 6000 x 4000.

So, my eyebrow is still raised, but maybe this is legit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
459
574
How many people are 'deciding between the Sony a1 and the Canon R3, really? Do people just think, gee, photography sounds neat, I'll buy a camera and lenses kit costing north of $10K? Doubtful. If you have a bunch of Canon lenses or a bunch of Sony lenses, there's inertia there. Canon users mostly stay Canon, Sony users mostly stay Sony. Yes, people switch – but those are the minority.

The 'market' is probably not current 1D X III owners, but rather 1D X II or 1D X owners looking to upgrade.
I think that recently the 'market' has increasingly become enthusiasts with deep pockets. We've seen extremely high demand for all goods here in the US, especially luxury goods. There are certainly 1D X owners who will pick up an R3, but a lot who won't due to the EVF. I think a lot of the R3 purchasers will be non-pro people who want to take pictures of fast-moving subjects. This may be a second body for them.

Also, these deep pocket enthusiasts have no trouble switching systems or owning bodies and glass from multiple systems. There are so many comments from people on the various forums indicating that they own other systems (D500 or D850 with the 500PF, A1 or A9 with the 200-600) for specific purposes, so I would definitely believe that the A1 vs. R3 debate will be more common than you expect (especially in the bird enthusiast circles).
 

Alan B

1DX Mark III
Feb 2, 2021
33
44
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: m4ndr4ke

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,481
2,346
Sorry about that, but 11 is a prime and not a particularly convenient one when converting from a power of two.
Which of course is part of the perversity of the "US Customary" (in this case matching Imperial units) of distance.

A mile is 1760 yards (and a meter is about 1.1 yards). That divides nicely by 32, but you end up with 55 (5x11) yards. So 11 is built into the system (along with 5 twos and a 5). Add a 3 to that if you work in feet (~30cm) instead of yards. It's actually largely a binary system not a decimal one, you take a square mile and divide it into four quarters, then divide them into four quarters, then divide them into four quarters....and each of those is ten acres. Of course, that means you have a square equal to 10 acres, so there is no tidy square that is ONE acre.

It has its own wacky logic. I like metric better...but as it happens a hectare is almost precisely one 16th of a mile, squared (no, that's not 1/16th of a square mile, it's 1/16th of a mile, then squared)--that falls out of 110 yards almost equaling 100 meters.

And yes, it has an 11 baked into it. WhyTheF*ck?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

bernie_king

EOS 90D
Jun 30, 2014
115
152
I'm curious, and I hope some folks will reply. On all of these R3 threads of late, I see many users comment on how they already have an R5, but were hoping to get the R3. In some case, perhaps, to replace the R5, a camera that they bought only in the past year and costs almost $4000. I guess I don't understand why an R5 owner would want an R3. Is there something about the R5 that doesn't suit your needs that an R3 would? Is it the integrated grip? The more rugged build? Just the fact that you want the latest and greatest? Curious minds don't quite get it, especially for those looking for an MP count closer to the R5. Wouldn't the R3 just be a more expensive version of the camera you already own, with little or difference in actual functionality or results?
The build quality, superior sealing, etc.. is important and on the list of reasons I want an R3. The biggest reason for me is AF acquisition. The R5 just isn't there with my 600 F4 II. I had the same problem with the 7D II. I suspect it's the lower voltage battery. There will be those who claim that's not true, but I can only say that every LP-E6 body I've used was slow and every 1 Series body I've had was quick. There are also smaller features that don't get much mention but make a big difference like metering tied to the AF point. I'll still keep my R5 (assuming the R3 is lower mp) for when I need extra cropping, but when things start to move I want faster AF. I haven't really had much issue with rolling shutter and viewfinder lag.. but it will be nice not to worry about that as well. If it turns out this thread is wrong and the R3 is 45+ I may sell the R5 and buy two R3s.