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

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
787
555
42
Philadelphia
The R3 very much feels like how the R was to the R5/R6. Is Canon’s opportunity to test some concepts for a pro-body e.g size, button placement, flip screen and eye controlled autofocus. Very much feels that there will be no MKII version of this camera, just like the original EOS3. Having said that I still think that it will be a great camera to use, with some trade offs, just like the R.

Now that we know most of the specifications and assuming that the 24mp sensor is correct, what are people’s feeling on price? My guess that in US market we are going to see annouced at $5499, that will give space for Canon to price an eventual R1 at $6899.
A proto
He is still focusing on stutter speed.
the guy can shoot whataver way he wants as long as he gets the shots and look good. A lot of real world real life photogs arent settings nazis. Get the shot and keep it moving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,344
22,520
People want 30 fps for stills, but 24 fps for movies, according to threads here. That reminds me a bit of folks who put their thermostats on 68 in the summer and 78 in the winter.
That's no joke. In my post-doc year in the Boston area, the lab was freezing in the summer, and I had to wear a sweater, and baking in the winter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
My question may be theoretical, but it could become real with an attractive option and if I get in a buying mood.

My current thinking is that if I am in splurge mode and want to get some camera equipment that might be enough of an upgrade to bother with, rather than sinking $10,000ish on an R5 or R3 or R1 and some more lenses, I would consider medium format. That would be mainly for landscapes and such. So what might be worth the trouble for me to look at? This is not just wild fantasy on my part, so I won't consider cameras that start at $19,995 or close to that. Let's call it a tame fantasy for now. I'm not looking to hijack this thread, or even start one of my own, since it is not relevant to this board, except for comparison purposes. But a few links to guide me into foreign territory for me would be appreciated. Google has not led me well. Even a short essay on why you abandoned your Hasselblad for a Canon RP might not be amiss, either.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
My question may be theoretical, but it could become real with an attractive option and if I get in a buying mood.

My current thinking is that if I am in splurge mode and want to get some camera equipment that might be enough of an upgrade to bother with, rather than sinking $10,000ish on an R5 or R3 or R1 and some more lenses, I would consider medium format. That would be mainly for landscapes and such. So what might be worth the trouble for me to look at? This is not just wild fantasy on my part, so I won't consider cameras that start at $19,995 or close to that. Let's call it a tame fantasy for now. I'm not looking to hijack this thread, or even start one of my own, since it is not relevant to this board, except for comparison purposes. But a few links to guide me into foreign territory for me would be appreciated. Google has not led me well. Even a short essay on why you abandoned your Hasselblad for a Canon RP might not be amiss, either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,854
That's no joke. In my post-doc year in the Boston area, the lab was freezing in the summer, and I had to wear a sweater, and baking in the winter.
In commercial buildings, having it be cooler in the summer saves energy, even though that sounds counterintuitive.

Years ago, in a then-new building built in 2004, we were warned they needed to turn off the heat for a couple of weeks the following summer for a major repair. As a building full of scientists, we were unconcerned – who needs heat in a Boston summer?

Turns out that we did. The engineers explained that because of the humidity of the incoming air, it was chilled to 50 °F / 10 °C to dehumidify the air, which was then warmed back up to a comfortable temperature. Outside air always has to be used in lab buildings, air cannot be recirculated. No heat meant it got really cold in the building (being pharma, they gave us all nice sweatshirts with the company logo and the tag line, “We’ve got drug discovery down cold,” and into work we went).

I suspect that’s why commercial buildings where dry air is required are cooler in summer – less heat reduces overhead costs.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,344
22,520
In commercial buildings, having it be cooler in the summer saves energy, even though that sounds counterintuitive.

Years ago, in a then-new building built in 2004, we were warned they needed to turn off the heat for a couple of weeks the following summer for a major repair. As a building full of scientists, we were unconcerned – who needs heat in a Boston summer?

Turns out that we did. The engineers explained that because of the humidity of the incoming air, it was chilled to 50 °F / 10 °C to dehumidify the air, which was then warmed back up to a comfortable temperature. Outside air always has to be used in lab buildings, air cannot be recirculated. No heat meant it got really cold in the building (being pharma, they gave us all nice sweatshirts with the company logo and the tag line, “We’ve got drug discovery down cold,” and into work we went).

I suspect that’s why commercial buildings where dry air is required are cooler in summer – less heat reduces overhead costs.
My year was 1968-69 in a crummy building with no dehumidification in the summer and huge heat loss in the winter. Modern labs are superb. My present one is a work of art as well as needing very complex programming to run the heating and airflow.
 
Upvote 0
I don't think this is firmware related but sensor hardware architecture related.

1) This kind of sensors with multiple raw sizes like for example 7D, 5D mark II, 5D mark III used to have, do not exist anymore. Except the recent cameras like 6D mark II for example, that still use old sensors (single gain), this camera still have multiple raw resolutions, but worse dynamic range.
Since they added dual gain to sensors (since 1D X mark II), multiple resolutions in RAW mode have disappeared.
So until this moment you either have multiple raw resolution or better dynamic range, you cannot have both.

2) Also confirmed by electron microscopy analysis of a single gain sensor (1D X)
"additional transistor connecting FD in three rows is used for binning"

3) The resolution of raw video mode of cameras like R5 is only in the 8K mode not also in 4K mode. The 8K mode is a 1:1 pixel read of the sensor at 16:9 aspect ratio, so there are only some skipped rows at the botton and top of the sensor, there is no binning involved.

--
But is still possible to have good multiple resolutions in JPEG mode, this is good enough for sport photographers. For example Sony A1 (50Mpx) can shot JPEG at 21 and 12 Mpx. Canon R5 (45Mpx) can shot JPEG at 22, 12 and 4 Mpx.

Yes, sensor-based but resolution is selectable in firmware. The Leica M11 is rumored to have a new 60mp BSI sensor that will shoot in three resolution modes. And since Canon is designing their own new BSI sensor, they may have found a way around any downsides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.
 
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.
For someone really requiring resolution - and that means an output size large enough to see that increase, sensor size wins every time. As has been mentioned in other treads, virtually no one is outputting at that kind of size, and for those that do it will be the exception not the rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,344
22,520
There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.
It does outresolve the R5 with a 3.76µ pixel pitch compared with 4.39µ.
 
Upvote 0
There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.
The lens selection for GFX is quite limited though, and overall cost will still be much higher than an R5 with a EF trinity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.
Yes, I could get a lens or two and still be under $10,000. For my purposes it definitely seems a better choice than getting into the RF cameras. But it would be such a splurge for my limited use that I'll really have to be in the right mood to buy (mainly a dreary one: deciding that life is too short to forego having the camera, and why should I care about having an extra $10K in my estate). I would still use my Canon gear as much as ever for most things. The 100S would be for additional landscape shooting mostly. A Zeiss monochrome camera might be a good choice for that instead. Or maybe just get the 24mm TS-E for my inner desire to be Ansel Adams. I realize I'm thinking of compensating myself for not traveling since March 12, 2020, using the money I would have spent. I have used photography as a way to try to stay sane during this time, and have shot locally. I get assignments to shoot for the neighborhood newsletter, and those can be fun, like shooting the doll houses made by a woman down the street. I may be the third best photographer in the neighborhood. My only anticipated big purchase will be when the new larger iMac comes out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
404
279
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
Am I the only one surprised that the pros are using auto white balance? I can’t say I know anyone who’s sole income comes from photography, that uses auto white balance. I don’t shoot sports, or know anyone making a living shooting sports, so maybe it’s just a sports thing?
Depends on the camera. Some OOC Jpegs with AWB shot outdoors are spot on. Easy to batch and correct. Using grey card, meter, color checker all good until a cloud comes or you change direction. Also if athletes are at a distance.... challenging. If they are shooting tethered how do you know they are not correcting in the truck? Too many factors....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
The key is that these few tax-hungry states require you to file an annual report and sign under oath and with criminal penalties for lying, swaeaiung as to your actual unpaid sales taxes, or paying them their required minimum. Most states with a few notable exceptions don't do anything, including go after individuals (or it would be big news).
B&H will credit you the sales tax if you use their credit card.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
In Singapore you will get the sales tax back at the airport when you leave and they will NOT tell your local tax authorities about it. So you can basically shop tax free in Singapore. Of course you should get rid of the packaging of your new camera and look like a tourist who bought it at home. That way the R5 costs almost 700 Euros less than in Germany and that is enough money for an economy flight to Singapore and back.
 
Upvote 0