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

[neuroanatomist]

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!!!!!

Where did I say specs don’t matter? But ergonomics matter, too. The differences between the R5 and R3 are far more than MP, fps and battery capacity.

I have kept shooting with my 1D X, and not bought an R5.

 

[rick1]

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.

No it's not at all. I would never buy a 1dxiii. DSLRs are dead. I am in the market for a R3/R1/a1 though

 

[cayenne]

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...

Well, now I'm anxious to see what the R1 will spec out at.....

cayenne

 

[rbielefeld]

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.

If the R3 does turn out to be 24mp, and the Nikon Z9 turns out to be 45mp or higher, I think Canon would be making a big mistake if they gave the R1 a 20mp sensor. Canon would already have a 24mp 30 fps beast available. It really would make no sense to have the R1 be basically the same camera at 20mp; unless it has a global shutter. If the R1 and R3 both end up having sensors in the 20mp range, what does Canon have to compete with the Sony a1 and most likely the 45mp Nikon Z9? And I don't believe Canon does not need to compete with these cameras. Sony pushed Canon to go mirrorless, so Sony is not clueless to what photographers are looking for as far as tools go. Myself, as a wildlife and bird photographer, I really do need more than 20mp at a high frame rate with great weather sealing, fast 1Dx type AF cycling, etc. Moreover, I am far from the only one with these needs as there are a lot of wildlife and bird photographers out here. I might even make an educated guess that there are more wildlife and bird photographers than sports photographers in the world. Birds especially have taken off with photographers ( pun intended). In the past, technology kept the resolution and speed of camera bodies down. That barrier no longer exists. I think Canon will come through with a high res (45-50mp) high speed (30fps) body for the mass of photographers, like myself, that are looking for such a camera. In my mind, it will be the R1.

 

[reef58]

No it's not at all. I would never buy a 1dxiii. DSLRs are dead. I am in the market for a R3/R1/a1 though

Do you have some kind of vanity with your camera choice? I have to keep repeating this, but I own both an R5 and a 1dx3. I prefer the 1dx3, so no the dslr is not "dead". Maybe to you, but not for me or a lot of others. Why does your choice have to be the only one? Do you speak for all camera owners?

 

[Skyscraperfan]

If the R3 really costs close to $6000, that would be a record cost per kilo for Canon photo cameras, as it likely is much lighter than the 1D series cameras. That's also what I criticize about some of the new lenses. They are much lighter than the EF versions, but cost much more. For example the 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[cayenne]

I always use aperture priority. I think the photographer should choose the aperture, as it has a huge influence on the look of an image. Usually I set it to f/8 or f/11 if there is enough light and to the largest aperture, if light is limited.

I can't remember the last time I switched any of my cameras off of full manual.

 

[rbielefeld]

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 BSI, stacked sensor hopefully will greatly reduce rolling shutter and noise at higher ISO settings. Also, the eye controlled AF could be a great improvement. Overall better AF under challenging conditions such as low light can be expected from a newer sensor, too. Also the larger higher voltage battery driving the AF motors faster for better AF performance overall. All of this and more at a decent resolution (30-45mp) for what I do (birds and wildlife) would not be trivial improvements for my work and worth the upgrade from my R5. I likely would have an R3 and an R5 as my backup if the R3 is 30 or more mp.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If the R3 really costs close to $6000, that would be a record cost per kilo for Canon photo cameras, as it likely is much lighter than the 1D series cameras. That's also what I criticize about some of the new lenses. They are much lighter than the EF versions, but cost much more. For example the 70-200 f/2.8.

I always wondered why there was a produce scale at each B&H checkout lane…now I know!

 

[PureClassA]

I'm personally fine with 24MP. Looking forward to seeing this sucker

 

[AlanF]

If the R3 really costs close to $6000, that would be a record cost per kilo for Canon photo cameras, as it likely is much lighter than the 1D series cameras. That's also what I criticize about some of the new lenses. They are much lighter than the EF versions, but cost much more. For example the 70-200 f/2.8.

The R5 costs $5900 in the UK, so that's already quite a record to beat.

 

[H. Jones]

I honestly think Canon is going to surprise us with the price.

Remember, they said this slots "below" the 1DX Mark III. At 24 megapixels, even with a grip, I think Canon would be smart to price this at an incredibly competitive price point to the A9II.

I lean towards $4800 due to the full grip, but they could genuinely undercut Sony with a roughly $4500 price point where you're saving actually money by not needing to buy an additional grip.

If the price is right on this thing, it would be an easy out for most of the comparisons with the Sony A1 and Nikon Z9 and their $6500 price point.

I can see the DP Review headlines now, "Canon's most affordable pro model yet."

 

[Skyscraperfan]

The R5 costs $5900 in the UK, so that's already quite a record to beat.

Yes, those small cameras get more and more expensive. If you show them to "normal" people (not photographers) and ask them to guess the price, they would probably guess around $1000 and they would be shocked if they learn the real price.

 

[exige24]

I honestly think Canon is going to surprise us with the price.

Remember, they said this slots "below" the 1DX Mark III. At 24 megapixels, even with a grip, I think Canon would be smart to price this at an incredibly competitive price point to the A9II.

I lean towards $4800 due to the full grip, but they could genuinely undercut Sony with a roughly $4500 price point where you're saving actually money by not needing to buy an additional grip.

If the price is right on this thing, it would be an easy out for most of the comparisons with the Sony A1 and Nikon Z9 and their $6500 price point.

I can see the DP Review headlines now, "Canon's most affordable pro model yet."

Like I've said, I'd LOVE to be proven wrong. Exceptionally wrong even, I just.....don't think so. Haha

 

[Czardoom]

Exactly. 6000 x 4000 exactly seems completely contrived.

Until you do a few minutes of research and find out that the files from many Canon 24 MP crop cameras such as the SL2 are exactly 6000 x 4000.

 

[rbielefeld]

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 a professional bird and wildlife photographer that takes 1000+ photographers out in the field on tours each year and I have been doing it for over 20 years. I am not sure where your "...but those are the minority." data came from, but from what I have seen over the years there are a lot of people in the world with a lot of money and they switch systems and shoot multiple systems. Since Sony came out with the a9, then the a9II, and now the a1 I have seem many of my repeat clients switch from Nikon and Canon to Sony. Many of these folks shot the other systems for many years and where highly invested in those system. This is just one example. These people are not just professionals, but also enthusiasts. There is inertia as you put it, but also thousands of people who go with the flow and switch systems to meet their desires. Within the realm of bird and wildlife photographers, I am not sure those who switch systems or shoot multiple system are a minority, but instead may be closer to the majority, and there are a lot of wildlife photographers out here with more joining their ranks every day. Just one persons somewhat educated perspective.

 

[Billybob]

Woohoo!

Personally I don’t see why anybody who is paying >$6,000 currently for a 1 series at 20mp will be disappointed at <$6,000 for a comparable R camera with 24mp.

You really need to understand who you are as a photographer. What works for the next photog may be totally inadequate for your purposes.

I purchased a used, almost new Nikon D5 for $4,500 because some wildlife photographers I respected raved about it. What I didn't give enough attention to was that these wildlife photographers shoot large mammals (including whales) in dark extremely moist places like the wilds of the Pacific Northwest. Their subject matter and location differ dramatically from the small animals and birds I shoot in very bright Florida. Needless to say, the D5 was a disappointment. Images were very sharp and in focus, but the detail I craved just wasn't there, and I never needed to shoot above ISO400, so low-light prowess was not an issue. Oh, and the camera was mediocre at base ISO.

Of course that camera along with the 1DX series, are the best sports DSLRs ever created. Rarely shooting sports, that accolade provided little solace to me.

 

[tron]

Sounds like you're in the market for an R1

It depends! We assume it will have high Mp count but we don't really know. But with the right (for me) number of Mpixels I would be tempted

 

[FramerMCB]

I'm simply astounded at the whining about a possible 24mp sensor camera. Only a few years ago, Pro's were shooting with 8, 10, and 12 mp and shooting amazing images.

Maybe just go buy the Fuji GFx100. Or the newer Leica...

 

[H. Jones]

I am a professional bird and wildlife photographer that takes 1000+ photographers out in the field on tours each year and I have been doing it for over 20 years. I am not sure where your "...but those are the minority." data came from, but from what I have seen over the years there are a lot of people in the world with a lot of money and they switch systems and shoot multiple systems. Since Sony came out with the a9, then the a9II, and now the a1 I have seem many of my repeat clients switch from Nikon and Canon to Sony. Many of these folks shot the other systems for many years and where highly invested in those system. This is just one example. These people are not just professionals, but also enthusiasts. There is inertia as you put it, but also thousands of people who go with the flow and switch systems to meet their desires. Within the realm of bird and wildlife photographers, I am not sure those who switch systems or shoot multiple system are a minority, but instead may be closer to the majority, and there are a lot of wildlife photographers out here with more joining their ranks every day. Just one persons somewhat educated perspective.

And yet I've seen the same thing happen with the R5, which is a far more affordable option at 45 megapixels and 20 FPS. Several Sony shooters I know, and a big name pro Nikon shooter I've followed, have all switched to the EOS R5 since its release. The Nikon shooter dropped over $20,000 in Nikon gear to switch to a two EOS R5 set-up, because he wasn't happy with the Z-series and had no interest in spending $6500 per camera for the A1 or future Z9.

The same enthusiasts making these choices are going to be very aware of the fact they can save $2500 over the A1 by going the R5 route instead, which is enough to net you a lens, possibly two if you go the 800mm F/11 route, and almost enough for the 100-500. I'm aware these people have the money, but the R5 is an incredibly compelling camera for the price that it's at.