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

[FrenchFry]

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 love my R5, and would be looking to add a second body to my kit in time for a trip, preferably and R3 but possibly a second R5.
The R5 is really amazing in many ways. There are some areas where it is less great. For instance, the tracking can sometimes lose the subject (think erratically moving hummingbirds). Tracking is not as good in low light, and can get confused by busy backgrounds. I really hope that Canon releases some improvements to the R5, particularly the autofocus, via firmware, but so far we've not seen any stills-oriented firmware enhancements for the R5, so there is no way to know whether any of these AF improvements are coming.
If the AF and tracking from the R3 is more "sticky" and performs better in low light or with busy backgrounds, it will make a great complement to the R5 for the faster-moving subjects, possibly. I've noticed that the larger the subject is in the frame, the better the tracking works for the R5. Sometimes, this means that shooting in Crop mode yields better tracking results, when getting closer to a skittish subject is not possible. At 24MP, Crop mode would not be an option, which would make the R3 a less great second body for small wildlife.
I'm waiting to learn more about the R3 and the upcoming R5 firmware updates before making a final choice between the two for a second body.

 

[OTMT]

I've been wondering whether or not it's possible that Canon is testing 2 different sensors. That would also explain why they've been so secretive about the sensor resolution.

 

[GoldWing]

Well I am a 1DX II shooter and have been a 1 series shooter for 20 odd years, I’ll be getting an R3.

Before you know all the facts?

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Anybody ever seen a camera with resolutions this "round"?

Just all of the 24MP cameras in the market

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.

I don't think that would be an issue with the CR3 file format. Files are smaller, these days.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I still hope that professional sports shooters reject the mirrorless cameras and Canon will come with a 1D X Mark IV with IBIS in 2024.

 

[exige24]

If this costs a dime more than the R5, I'll laugh. It ain't 2017 anymore, Canon. The A1 does actually exist!!! Lol

 

[Hector1970]

Yes Sony will be delighted because Sony is all about specs. Personally, I give Canon credit. They seem to be far more concerned about making cameras that work for photographers. With photographer input. No doubt, in today's world of internet forums and YouTube influencers, they will be ridiculed and mocked. But, luckily for photographers, they are not going to go Sony's route and care more about internet popularity than making quality cameras that are geared toward their target markets. Just my 2 cents having owned Sony, Nikon, and Canon cameras.

Keep in mind that Canon doesn't usually (or perhaps ever) announce the MPs until the official announcement. This only "messes" with rumor site participants and YouTube idiots who are too impatient to wait for a camera's actual release. Pretty sad they they are running the narrative.

For me Sony is not all about the specs. They are producing very fine cameras. They've been key to pushing Canon's efforts for the last few years. They've championed full frame mirrorless. Canon have always tried to have the number 1 camera at the top end of the range which makes the R3 a bit of an odd effort. Canon may not have officially given sensor MP's in their official announcement, my memory is sketchy on the topic, I don't remember them giving pre-announcements for the 5DII, 5DIII, 5DIV, IDX 1, II, IIII but maybe they did. In my recollection we weren't in doubt when something like the 5DSR was coming. We knew it was going to be 50MP. I don't remember Canon giving some much detail in a camera announcement before but maybe I just don't remember. Every user has their own viewpoint on whether a camera is for them or not. As an owner of the 1DXIII and knowing it ability to buffer images I'm sure Canon is well able to produce a 30 or 50 MP version of the R3 but have chosen not to. Other Canon owners might still be chewing at the bit to pick this up but its a pass for me. The R1 may also be 24 MP camera but I can hope that Canon attempt to distinguish it from the R3.

 

[exige24]

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.

Would not even switch to this camera from my R5 if they were the same cost, which they should be, but I somehow suspect they won't be. Lol

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

I was considering buying an R5, just prior to the development announcement of the R3. I used a 1D X extensively before buying an EOS R, and I far prefer the form factor of the integrated grip, which is why I avoided the R5 for so long. Not a lot of difference between 24 and 30 MP, and as someone pointed out the weaker AA filter of the new sensors (although we really don't know about the AA filter in the R3) means even less of a difference between the R3's presumptive 24 MP and the 30 MP of my EOS R.

 

[pixel8foto]

I'm not an expert at reading EXIF like this. What is it in there that tells us this is an OOC file rather than one that's been resized before upload?

 

[SteveC]

Would not even switch to this camera from my R5 if they were the same cost, which they should be, but I somehow suspect they won't be. Lol

In my case it's below my "sweet spot" for resolution (the R5 is well above it, the R6 was below it; I'd certainly prefer the r6 over the R5 otherwise; more controls, 2 SD slots, etc., etc.).

Given the additional features a "reasonable" cost for this would be something around USD 4500 (not that I'd be in the market for it, again regardless of resolution) but I doubt it will be that.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

R5 is a very nice camera to stick with! I have it too and I have not regretted it (I sold my R though). I would like a R5 with R3's body and battery though...

Sounds like you're in the market for an R1

 

[exige24]

In my case it's below my "sweet spot" for resolution (the R5 is well above it, the R6 was below it; I'd certainly prefer the r6 over the R5 otherwise; more controls, 2 SD slots, etc., etc.).

Given the additional features a "reasonable" cost for this would be something around USD 4500 (not that I'd be in the market for it, again regardless of resolution) but I doubt it will be that.

The R5 is just an amazing camera. I'm still in awe of it every time I shoot with it. I don't even see how they could charge $4500 for it considering the biggest things this camera has going for it are +10 fps and a bigger battery bay..........but that's at the cost of half the resolution and a myriad of video features. Then you realize it will most likely cost closer to $6000 and you have to laugh. Kinda lame honestly, IMHO.


A lot of people here keep taking exception to others comparing this to the A1. It's a valid comparison because that camera has been released for nearly six months. What they don't realize is that Canon's own release from a year ago makes this camera look bad too. Shame, really.

 

[landon]

The solution is to buy the R5, R3, R1, R high mp. As all camera manufacturers intended.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The R5 is just an amazing camera. I'm still in awe of it every time I shoot with it. I don't even see how they could charge $4500 for it considering the biggest things this camera has going for it are +10 fps and a bigger battery bay..........but that's at the cost of half the resolution and a myriad of video feature. Then you realize it will most likely cost closer to $6000 and you have to laugh. Kinda lame honestly, IMHO.

How long have you used 1-series cameras? Perhaps you use a spec sheet to take pictures?

 

[Dragon]

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?

Actually, an acre was not meant to be square. The 10 acre square you mention is 10 chains or 1 furlong on each side. The Ideal Acre was defined as 1 chain by 10 chains (66x660 ft.) with the notion of that as a lot that you could build a house near the front and have a space to grow stuff at the back, all the while making access road at the front relatively short and putting neighbors close together. The 11 pops out of a chain being 66 ft long. I have never seen a definitive explanation that proves whether the system started from the top (mile) or bottom (chain). The rod (16.5 ft) is clearly a sub unit as 1/4th of a chain. If you have a sense of humor it is actually kind of fun- a mostly binary (quaternary in area) system with a sneaky 11 hiding in there. The system was created from practical usage, whereas the Metric system starts with a base unit and throws factors of ten at everything. For many things (cooking is a good example) a binary approach is actually more useful than the metric system.

Probably the biggest hang-up in the English measuring system is the dichotomy between the statute mile and the nautical mile which was only finalized after someone actually figured out how far it really was around the world. So now we have MPH and knots to deal with. The nautical mile is a practical measure in that it takes 21,600 of them to go around the world making 1 minute of latitude equal to 1 nautical mile. Are we having fun yet?

 

[exige24]

How long have you used 1-series cameras? Perhaps you use a spec sheet to take pictures?

An perhaps you should be shooting with a 1D from 2001 because specs don't matter. Somehow I suspect you're not and I wonder why that is!!!!!

 

[dtaylor]

A lot of people here keep taking exception to others comparing this to the A1. It's a valid comparison because that camera has been released for nearly six months. What they don't realize is that Canon's own release from a year ago makes this camera look bad too. Shame, really.

That depends entirely on the price, AF performance, EVF performance, rolling shutter (if any), and whether or not it can sustain 30 fps at 14-bit.

 

[Manicouagan1]

24mp (4000X6000), 6 micrometer pixels, seems to be a sweet spot in 24x36 mm sensors. Enough pixels to print an uncropped image the at the largest size in I choose to print (13x19), and largest enough pixels to yield noise characteristics meeting my needs for sports shooting indoors. The only time I need more pixels is when I am shooting birds at the limits of my telephoto lens setup and crop severely.

My unanswered issues are the presence or absence of GPS tagging using an in-camera sensor, the presence of a mechanical shutter or other cover to protect the sensor when changing lenses in uncontrolled environments, and the availability and build quality of the RF 100-400mm 5.6 lens for outdoor sports.

 

[exige24]

That depends entirely on the price, AF performance, EVF performance, rolling shutter (if any), and whether or not it can sustain 30 fps at 14-bit.

Yeah, maybe those other lesser feature improvements can bump up it's desirability a bit, buuuuuuuuut who are we kidding here? This is Canon. This thing is going to come in at near $6000. Lol I'd love to be proven wrong though!