I'm still waiting for you to provide a believable theory why Canon hasn't put a 45MP sensor in the R3. To say or imply that it's just because 1Dxiii users are happy with 20MP and don't want more, is just plain daft, as they'd have the option of using a lower res than 45MP when they needed it, just by selecting it in the menu. And at the same time they'd have a much more flexible camera that provided far greater cropping options - very important to many users, particularly as the extra cropping ability allows them to use shorter, lighter and cheaper lenses to achieve the same end result.
Not sure why you cannot grasp this, it's not complicated. Canon released the 1D X III with a 20 MP sensor, even though it could have had more MP. If the R3 is announced at 24 MP as the topic of this thread suggests, then Canon will have released it with a 24 MP sensor, even though it could have had more MP.
So, either Canon is daft and releasing cameras with lower-than-possible MP sensors for no conceivable reason, or they have a reason and you cannot understand it, cannot accept it, or both.
The onus is not on me to provide a theory as to why. You can choose to believe they're daft and have no reason. But if you think that large, successful companies are capricious like that, it's you who's daft.
They made a choice with the 1D X III, they may have made an analogous choice with the R3. I'm certain they have good, logical reasons. Since we seem to agree that those reasons are
not technical limitations, they are most likely market-driven, as I suggested some time back.
You suggest the idea that 20-24 MP is sufficient for many people is daft, but honestly, how much real market research have you conducted? Sent out surveys to a few thousand CPS members around the world? Canon does that regularly. Tracked the camera and lens buying habits of individuals and organizations via product registrations over decades? Canon does that. Assessed what gear photographers at sporting events around the world use? Canon does that. Logged the equipment that professional photographers of all genres evaluate on loan, compared to the equipment they actually buy? Canon does that.
So please, tell me what market research you've sponsored or personally conducted to provide data on how many MP people would find sufficient. Read a few posts on the internet? You know a few people with cameras? LOL.
There simply is no advantage to having a low res sensor if comparing same-generation sensors of the same size. DR is identical, and noise levels are *lower* with a high res sensor if the output is printed at the same size. I don't believe that the R3 would have any problems maintaining long 30fps bursts with 45MP either. And it's unlikely that a 45MP sensor costs much more to produce than a 24MP sensor - certainly a bit more due to lower yield rates, but as a percentage of the cost of what is likely to be a $5500 camera, the difference in cost would be pretty insignificant.
So I'll ask you again, exactly what advantage is there for a user to be limited to 24MP? Other than unfounded and uninformed fear about differences in noise levels -
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/794...esolution-sensors-are-not-better-in-low-light
There isn't any. So what? My point is that Canon is making what they believe to be rational decisions on these matters, with real data to drive those decisions. Data you clearly don't have.
And answer me honestly, if you had the choice between 2 otherwise identical cameras, one with 45MP (with an option to select 24MP), and the other limited to a maximum of 20 or 24MP, which would you choose?
I have to choose between an R5 with 45 MP and (presumably) an R3 with 24 MP. More MP, or better performance and better (for me) ergonomics. Would I choose a 45 MP R3 over a 24 MP R3? Yes, I would. Do I have that choice? No, I don't. Is 24 MP sufficient for me? Yes, which is why I'll be buying the R3.
There may well be an alternative explanation that neither you or I have thought of, but Canon more than any other manufacture is renowned for using product segmentation and so-called "crippling" to protect sales of other cameras in its range (including models under development).
Canon's so-called 'crippling' of cameras really boils down to Canon not making the specific camera with the specific features that internet complainers and forum dwellers claim they would buy (when in reality, most would not).
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what this whole discussion is really about – you want an R3 with 45 MP, and Canon is apparently not giving you one, so you're repetitively and petulantly demanding an explanation.