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

[milkod2001]

In my opinion this camera is not for someone currently shooting with a 1DX 1DXMKII or 1DXMKIII as a professional to transition your kit from EF to RF at a $50K to $80K+ investment.

1. The loss of OVF
2. Two Different Format Cards
3. No significant jump in resolution
4. Transition to RF Glass

These four factors will make us wait until the R1 is released. Also 30fps is no inducement we know all that is required is 15fps RAW for stills for any sport.

This does leave one to wonder if Canon will double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII for the R1. We are seeing people shoot sports with the Fuji GFX100s and the work is amazing, stunning, beautiful, sharp, crisp with exceptional detail and resolution.

'We are seeing people shoot sports with the Fuji GFX100s' LOL. What sports? Like chess? Fuji GFX100 is more for portraits, landscapes, reproduction work etc. For sports is has very slow AF. You sure can take some nice pics with it but it's wrong tool for shooting sports.

 

[Finn]

But let's stop with conspiracy theories. There are enough of those going around these days anyway.

I heard the Aliens made Canon give them the extra 6.1 MP of each shot for surveillance purposes because they were disappointed about the Jewish space laser causing fires on flat, hollow Earth.

 

[AlanF]

Carthago Canon delendam est

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.

 

[MiJax]

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?

Sensor speed and a full body are the biggest drivers for me. The R5 is a great camera and will have to do me for the next 5 or so years as this was the only thing on the horizon that got my interest (no interest in a $8k R1, nor do I have the faith that it will even meet my expectations). As far as other reasons someone who brought a $4000 body a year ago would consider jumping is, I hate the AF-On button on the R5 and I hate the extended grip as well, and any improvement to the AF system is always welcome. Couple that to the fact that the R5 still has a really strong resale value, its almost a no-brainer.

For my use, the R5 readout speed is fine, but I know there are situations where it will hamper me, where the R3 may effectively render that a non issue. But far and away, comfort is the biggest driver. Sitting in a blind waiting with my thumb on the AF-On button for 5-30 mins at time, that comfort thing plays a big part. But again... its just something I'll have to deal with. The only other option is jump ship to Sony, which would tick a few boxes, but untick a lot too. C'est la vie.

 

[milkod2001]

With 24MP Canon pretty much made A9II competitor so i presume price won't jump over $5000. If so many will probably wait for R1 or just get R5.

 

[privatebydesign]

And they were all released before Canon had a processor that could scale, so no useful data.

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.

 

[unfocused]

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 have three bodies. For most of my work, I carried the 5D and R. When shooting sports, it was the 1d and the 5D. With three bodies I need two bags since some days I'll be shooting with the 5D and R during the day and then switching to the 1D and 5D for sports in the afternoon or evening. There are features of the R that I prefer for shooting events (mostly the thumb control focus). But the R sucks for sports.

It's a pain in the butt to lug everything around and switch lens systems back and forth. I now have the R5 and could get by with that and the R for non-sports shooting, but I still need the 1D for sports. So, for me, the idea of an R3 that would allow me to dump both the 1D and the R and get back to only carrying two bodies and one set of lenses is very appealing. I've gotten spoiled by the 45mp of the R5 and the 30mp of the R, so I was hoping for a little higher resolution in the R3. Still, as I said I'm coming to grips with the lower resolution which will still be higher than the 1D. I realize I'm a unique case, but you asked.

 

[csibra]

And zero of them have well rated 4k video, which is an absolute must for any camera now.

What about M50?

 

[kaihp]

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.

I was trolling the "Canon is doooooomed" crowd. And yes, Cato the Elder.

And my apologies for not bothering to check the correct spelling of delenda (vs delendam). I never learned Latin, but did learn a bit of German, French in school and Chinese when I lived there. But hey, we got to chuckle, right?

 

[AlanF]

Sensor speed and a full body are the biggest drivers for me. The R5 is a great camera and will have to do me for the next 5 or so years as this was the only thing on the horizon that got my interest (no interest in a $8k R1, nor do I have the faith that it will even meet my expectations). As far as other reasons someone who brought a $4000 body a year ago would consider jumping is, I hate the AF-On button on the R5 and I hate the extended grip as well, and any improvement to the AF system is always welcome. Couple that to the fact that the R5 still has a really strong resale value, its almost a no-brainer.

For my use, the R5 readout speed is fine, but I know there are situations where it will hamper me, where the R3 may effectively render that a non issue. But far and away, comfort is the biggest driver. Sitting in a blind waiting with my thumb on the AF-On button for 5-30 mins at time, that comfort thing plays a big part. But again... its just something I'll have to deal with. The only other option is jump ship to Sony, which would tick a few boxes, but untick a lot too. C'est la vie.

Some great shots on your flickr pages! Lighter weight and higher resolution of the R5 enabling shorter, lighter lenses swing it the other way for me.

 

[dtaylor]

Good camera but... I'll stay with my 1DXmk3, 5D4 and 5Ds for many years to come. Too great investment in 14 EF (mostly L) lenses and frankly, what will the R3 really do MUCH BETTER than my 1DX?

For those who feel they really benefit from high speed shooting, 30 fps is a big jump assuming there's no rolling shutter. And if the EVF solves continuous shooting lag (which it should at 30 fps capture), then that solves a significant mirrorless issue for those who shoot long bursts. It's definitely an evolution of technology and an impressive camera. It also potentially solves some issues that would make 1DX shooters more comfortable adding mirrorless and gaining the mirrorless advantage of AI subject tracking AF.

That said: at times I feel the same way you do about things. I'm not limited in any way by my equipment right now. I need time to travel and inspiration. So while I appreciate what the R3 (and R5/R6) bring to the table, I cringe when people post stuff to Twitter like OMG I just burned all my old equipment if you're not shooting this awesome new mirrorless you can't compete, you're not even a photographer! There's certainly nothing wrong with taking advantage of the new tech Canon is brining to the table. But their DSLRs were so highly evolved by the end of the 2010's that there's nothing wrong with sitting tight for a while either. Same thing is true on the Nikon side. Perhaps even more so because the transition is not necessarily as seamless as it is with Canon's EF-to-RF adapter.

 

[privatebydesign]

What about M50?

What about it? Yes it does 4K but it isn’t good quality.

A warning about 4K on the Canon EOS M50 - EOSHD.com - Filmmaking Gear and Camera Reviews

How much longer must video shooters go on taking these middle fingers from the market leader? Make no mistake, 4K on the M50 is a box-ticking exercise. It will disappoint a large number of Instagram and YouTube content creators who know the bare minimum about video because 4K will be virtually...

www.eoshd.com

 

[csibra]

Sure, buy why bother ?

For a joke? For a distraction? For some attention? Choose one

 

[dtaylor]

80D, M5, M50, and a bunch of rebels are all 6000x40000, but based on the scaling in the R5, 6kx4k is also a likely resolution for an MJPEG from a 48 MP sensor and from a competitive perspective, that would be a good number, so waiting a bit longer before drawing conclusions from inconclusive data is probably wise.

That would be an interesting twist. Guarantee you though, if that turns out to be the case, this forum will be filled with posts like this: Why did Canon do this? I don't have time to mess around with huge files! And my hard drives are full. This is a sports camera, not a landscape camera! I need to get pictures to my editor fast and I want big pixel high ISO. I'm out man. I just canceled my pre-order. It's time to jump to the Sony A9.

As always: Canon is ill-fated.

 

[goldenhusky]

what a pity for birders. I´ll stay with my R5...

But what is following? R1 with 20MPix, as professionals do not need more?
I hope for an high MPix R5 or R3 for birders.

I would even take an APS-C mirror less camera with a 24MP modern sensor with top of the line AF system (repalcement for 7D line) but Canon will not simply release a camera like that.

 

[docsmith]

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.

Exactly. 6000 x 4000 exactly seems completely contrived.

 

[Dragon]

That would be an interesting twist. Guarantee you though, if that turns out to be the case, this forum will be filled with posts like this: Why did Canon do this? I don't have time to mess around with huge files! And my hard drives are full. This is a sports camera, not a landscape camera! I need to get pictures to my editor fast and I want big pixel high ISO. I'm out man. I just canceled my pre-order. It's time to jump to the Sony A9.

As always: Canon is ill-fated.

Until you look at actual sales .

 

[dtaylor]

What about it? Yes it does 4K but it isn’t good quality.

A warning about 4K on the Canon EOS M50 - EOSHD.com - Filmmaking Gear and Camera Reviews

How much longer must video shooters go on taking these middle fingers from the market leader? Make no mistake, 4K on the M50 is a box-ticking exercise. It will disappoint a large number of Instagram and YouTube content creators who know the bare minimum about video because 4K will be virtually...

www.eoshd.com

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.

 

[gregster]

Exactly. 6000 x 4000 exactly seems completely contrived.

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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.