Update: The Canon EOS R3 will be officially announced on June 29th

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,247
6,780
Pretty cure cost of entry and low price ef glass plays a huge role in that. A rebel with access to old cheap EF lenses is a lot cheaper.
The cost of the entry level DSLRs and MILCs (e.g., SL3/Kiss X10 and M50 MkII/Kiss M2) are essentially the same (within a few 10’s of dollars and different ones are slightly cheaper in different markets, so no real difference there).

Most APS-C body sales are 1- and 2-lens kits, and given the 1.4:1 lens:body market ratio, most consumers never buy another lens, so ‘old, cheap EF lenses aren’t a factor, and regardless EF-M lenses are similarly-priced with EF-S counterparts.

The reality is that a large swath of the market still prefers DSLRs over MILCs. Do you honestly think it’s a good idea to ‘slowly kill off’ camera lines that comprise 45% of the ILC market?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,703
1,966
My dream has just come true!
The R 3 is for me the ideal camera for macro, with its eye-control AF, class-leading IBIS, and the RF 100mm, since 99% of my macro shots are handheld. Bank-account, get ready for a savage attack!
Edit: I forgot the integrated grip:love:, perfect for vertical pictures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,714
437
51
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Fingers crossed for a reasonable selling price. After forking out for the 1dx mkiii last year the chances of persuading the boss that this is a must have could be difficult especially if its over £5k.
Invest in camera glass...not the camera bodies. The bodies worth drop like a hot brick over 3-5 years. Most lenses only take a 20% hit over their life span of 10-20 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Aug 7, 2018
393
341
Many of your posts are nonsensical, but this one makes you look more foolish than most.

Downsampling means removing information from an image, a RAW image contains the original data from each pixel on the sensor.

Perhaps you're confusing downsampling with compression, they are not the same.

When you downsample a RAW image, it is no longer RAW. Period.
I don't think they will evev give use the real RAW images. For example there is one quite extreme transformation they apply before creating the RAW: The Bayer Filter only lets through either red, green or blue light for each pixel. However the RAW file already seems to contain an interpolated version of that real raw data that comes from the camera. Each colour is interpolated to neighbouring pixels to create the final image. So combining two green, one red and one blue pixel into a single pixel of an sRAW image would even be more accurate than the big RAW image that contains a lot of interpolated colour information. Even some noise reduction that can't be disabled is used to create the RAW file. So it is quite far away from real raw data.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,108
2,135
I don't think they will evev give use the real RAW images. For example there is one quite extreme transformation they apply before creating the RAW: The Bayer Filter only lets through either red, green or blue light for each pixel. However the RAW file already seems to contain an interpolated version of that real raw data that comes from the camera.[..]
Ehm, no. RAW images from Canon cameras haven't been debayered or interpolated yet, the software on you computer needs to do that. In the past you could use 'mRAW' and 'sRAW', which weren't actually RAW. They were debayered, downscaled TIFFs with enough metadata to be able to change the whitebalance in post.

As for the alledged noise reduction on the R5 sensor, we don't know where and why it's being done. It could very well be done in hardware by the sensor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,407
1,118
Yorkshire, England
Cameras focused on high ISO have lower resolution.
I guess maybe they also have less noise at low ISO but they capture a lot less information.
I was disappointed when I compared the 12mp Sony A7s against my 5DS at relatively high ISO, ie practical for my situation, about 6,400.
The Sony is meant to be the one of the best quality at high ISO, yet when I downsampled the 5DS to the same 12mp it wasn’t that different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,331
1,056
Ehm, no. RAW images from Canon cameras haven't been debayered or interpolated yet, the software on you computer needs to do that. In the past you could use 'mRAW' and 'sRAW', which weren't actually RAW. They were debayered, downscaled TIFFs with enough metadata to be able to change the whitebalance in post.

As for the alledged noise reduction on the R5 sensor, we don't know where and why it's being done. It could very well be done in hardware by the sensor.
Not completely.
RAW files are not a direct readout from the sensor.
They have still gone through an image processor.
The amount of processing varies from camera to camera which is one of the reasons Photoshop has to do custom RAW processing for every camera.
Adobe came out with DNG (Digital Negative) RAW format to try to avoid this but that became a clusterbomb.
Now each vendor has a custom RAW format that is different for every camera.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,247
6,780
I don't think they will evev give use the real RAW images. For example there is one quite extreme transformation they apply before creating the RAW: The Bayer Filter only lets through either red, green or blue light for each pixel. However the RAW file already seems to contain an interpolated version of that real raw data that comes from the camera. Each colour is interpolated to neighbouring pixels to create the final image. So combining two green, one red and one blue pixel into a single pixel of an sRAW image would even be more accurate than the big RAW image that contains a lot of interpolated colour information. Even some noise reduction that can't be disabled is used to create the RAW file. So it is quite far away from real raw data.
Sorry, no. You need to do a little more research on what comprises a RAW image.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,247
6,780
Not completely.
RAW files are not a direct readout from the sensor.
They have still gone through an image processor.
The amount of processing varies from camera to camera which is one of the reasons Photoshop has to do custom RAW processing for every camera.
Adobe came out with DNG (Digital Negative) RAW format to try to avoid this but that became a clusterbomb.
Now each vendor has a custom RAW format that is different for every camera.
Not quite. The ‘custom RAW format’ is a set of corrections applied by the RAW conversion software that supports the camera, and the manufacturer supplies those instructions. For example, the RF 24-240 is actually wider than 24mm and has mechanical vignetting at the corners, but when cropped to a 24mm FoV the vignetting is outside that frame.

When you view the RAW image in software that supports that camera, that cropping is applied by the viewing software. When you use an agnostic viewer like RawTherapee, you see the wider-than-24mm FoV of the 24-240 and the vignetted corners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,283
2,155
Kentucky, USA
I don't think they will evev give use the real RAW images. For example there is one quite extreme transformation they apply before creating the RAW: The Bayer Filter only lets through either red, green or blue light for each pixel. However the RAW file already seems to contain an interpolated version of that real raw data that comes from the camera. Each colour is interpolated to neighbouring pixels to create the final image. So combining two green, one red and one blue pixel into a single pixel of an sRAW image would even be more accurate than the big RAW image that contains a lot of interpolated colour information. Even some noise reduction that can't be disabled is used to create the RAW file. So it is quite far away from real raw data.
Are you saying the raw file (as stored in memory, NOT as viewed) contains 3 colors per pixel after Bayer interpolation? I very strongly doubt that, but would welcome you to provide evidence of it. You might be assuming this because when you "view" a raw file (by using some software program), that program will do the Bayer interpolation of the (non-interpolated) file so that you can see it on a monitor which is expecting 3 colors per pixel format.

Now, some manufacturers are reported to apply filtering on the stored raw file itself (which is tragic IMHO) so that they have better results when their camera & sensors are tested by companies like DXO. (Remember the "star eater" firmware versions from Sony?) I don't know if this is true for Canon or not, and would be interested to know if it was.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

UpstateNYPhotog

EOS M50
Jun 3, 2021
48
41
Have you played with any of the AI up-scalers lately, like Gigapixel? Pretty amazing. Who REALLY needs more than 30MP now? Even the 12MP A7s becomes useable as a stills camera again (not just for video). People who absolutely must have huge files will probably migrate to medium format if they haven't already or will rely on pixel shift (for motionless subjects) if they need to create a large file. I think 30MP is ideal for most uses. I haven't had a client ask for a print in decades. Almost all viewing is done on a screen now and for magazine work, 30MP is more than enough. If not, use AI software to double the perceived resolution. I just hope the R3 is less than $6000 USD. It apparently has the specs of the 1Dx and those have all been introduced at $6500+/- so I wouldn't be surprised is this one lands in that zone, too. But maybe Canon will not be greedy and will realize they'll sell more if they keep the price as low as possible. Remember the 1Dc that started out at $10,000? I'm hoping for a pleasant price surprise (and 4K 120fps) on the 29th.
Agreed on 30 MP. I've never had a complaint about 20 MP 1Dx II files either. 45MP would just slow me down. If the R5 was 30 MP I'd have two by now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

UpstateNYPhotog

EOS M50
Jun 3, 2021
48
41
Invest in camera glass...not the camera bodies. The bodies worth drop like a hot brick over 3-5 years. Most lenses only take a 20% hit over their life span of 10-20 years.
Yes. My original model EF 300 2.8 still takes amazing images. I think it's remarkable that Canon built a system in the late 80's such that you can still mount those lenses on an R5 from 2020 and do amazing work. I can't think of any other piece of expensive high technology that is so backwards/forwards compatible. Not that I still don't miss my FD 400 2.8.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Aug 7, 2018
393
341
Are you saying the raw file (as stored in memory, NOT as viewed) contains 3 colors per pixel after Bayer interpolation? I very strongly doubt that, but would welcome you to provide evidence of it. You might be assuming this because when you "view" a raw file (by using some software program), that program will do the Bayer interpolation of the (non-interpolated) file so that you can see it on a monitor which is expecting 3 colors per pixel format.

Now, some manufacturers are reported to apply filtering on the stored raw file itself (which is tragic IMHO) so that they have better results when their camera & sensors are tested by companies like DXO. (Remember the "star eater" firmware versions from Sony?) I don't know if this is true for Canon or not, and would be interested to know if it was.
If the RAW file does not contain any interpolated colours, that would mean that each pixel only contains either red, blue and green colours. Doesn't that mean that the whole information contained in one red, one blue and one of the green pixels could be saved in a single RGB pixel? I think that depends on how the interploation works. Is each colour interpolated separately or do the blue pixels for example help interploating the red pixels?
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,331
1,056
If the RAW file does not contain any interpolated colours, that would mean that each pixel only contains either red, blue and green colours. Doesn't that mean that the whole information contained in one red, one blue and one of the green pixels could be saved in a single RGB pixel? I think that depends on how the interploation works. Is each colour interpolated separately or do the blue pixels for example help interploating the red pixels?
There are no RGB pixels in a RAW file.
Each pixel is red, green, or blue.
(BRAW files are RGBW because it was originally designed for the URSA 12K sensor. which is not a Bayer sensor.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
311
336
First, and this is absolutely no insult, if you knew which was which, a subconscious assumption may have biased your analysis. That's why real science is based on blind or even double-blind testing: make people rate the photos NOT knowing which camera took which. And maybe even have the person making the test not know which is which, so they don't fall into some unspoken subconscious ordering.

Second, Canon has always had sensors with the wiring on the front of the sensor (front-side sensor). The double MP sensor has twice the wires interfering with light, so it is NOT true that a hi-MP front-side sensor will pick up as many TOTAL photons as a lo-MP sensor. In contrast the R3 and one assumes all future Canons are back-side. The entire front of the sensor is sensitive to photons, whether there's 1 big pixel or a billion. In this case, while every single pixel in the hi-MP sensor will have more noise, the scene as a whole won't, so down-sampling (especially, downsampling by an integer factor like exactly 4 pixels to 1) should give an identical image with identical noise characteristics as well as identical resolution.
I actually shared the files with a couple of other folks and just labeled them A & B version. Certainly not scientific measurement, but everyone picked the R6 shots off of a iMac 5k monitor. I am not a sensor geek, but aware of the difference between the sensors and potential advantages.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
311
336
It's a property of math, relied upon in statistics.

Say we're imaging something half-reflective of light, and it's so dark that even a pure white object will only yield one photon in each pixel of a hi-MP sensor. So our gray object should yield a half-photon per pixel. NO single pixel will have the correct answer of half-reflective, because there's no such thing as a half-photon. Instead they'll either have twice the real value, or a zero value. Noise is +- 100%, basically! (This is like: we know the odds when flipping a coin is 50% either way, but if we then just flip a coin one time, we cannot get 50%, we only get 100% heads or 0% heads.)

Now, take 4 pixels of this hi-MP sensor, either getting 0 photons (black) or 1 (white), and sum them. Consider receipt of a photon as a coin flip. Giving 0 for no photon, and 1 for a photon, the equally likely possibilities are:

0000
0001
0010
0011
0100
0101
0110
0111
1000
1001
1010
1011
1100
1101
1110
1111

Now you'll see a total of:

0 -- 1 time in 16. We're reporting this larger pixel to be black, 100% off its true value.
1 -- 4 times in 16. We're reporting this larger pixel to be 25, 50% off its true value.
2 -- 6 times in 16. We're reporting this larger pixel to be 50, its true value.
3 -- 4 times in 16. We're reporting this larger pixel to be 75, 50% off its true value.
4 -- 1 time in 16. We're reporting this larger pixel to be 100, 100% off its true value.

Instead of being off the correct value of .5 by 100% as before, now we're off by: 100 * 1/16 + 50 * 4/16 + 0 * 6/16 + 50 * 4/16 + 100 * 1/16 = 37.5%.

Now, take a lo-MP sensor with 1/4 the resolution. Its pixels are big enough they'll get 4 photons from a white object. Our gray object should return 2 photons. The math works identically to the above five cases and their chances of happening, giving the same 37.5% noise.

So, back to sensors. An 80MP back-side sensor should capture as many photons total as a 20MP sensor, though that means only 1/4 the photos per pixel and thus far higher noise per pixel. But then average four neighboring pixels together and the noise level comes down to exactly the same as the 20MP sensor.
This one I will have to give some consideration and research since I am not a sensor geek and hated statistics. Reminds me too much of the discussion I had with the design engineers when we bought the Image Sensor Division from Kodak. I have no issues admitting I don't know, which was a surprisingly effective approach in business.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,247
6,780
If the RAW file does not contain any interpolated colours, that would mean that each pixel only contains either red, blue and green colours. Doesn't that mean that the whole information contained in one red, one blue and one of the green pixels could be saved in a single RGB pixel? I think that depends on how the interploation works. Is each colour interpolated separately or do the blue pixels for example help interploating the red pixels?
Reducing the data from adjacent pixels with different color masks would mean a loss of spatial resolution. Also, following that processing you would no longer have a RAW file.

A simple algorithm using only adjacent photosites would interpolate color poorly. Current RAW conversion algorithms use many surrounding photosites of all three color masks to better estimate the color value of each pixel. Demosaicing is more than just simple interpolation among immediately adjacent pixels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,024
1,193
UK
Yes, at the current rate of market change that should only take a decade or so. Did you know that the best-selling ILC in Japan for the last two months was a Canon DSLR?
..... well I succumbed to the irresistible R5, but only because Canon didn't produce a DSLR successor to the 5DS and 5DMkiv.

I've owned the R5 for a couple of months, shooting about 8000 shots so far, of birds (incl. BIF), mammals, insects and landscapes. It's a fantastic camera, but I still greatly prefer the DSLR viewfinder experience...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users