Canon R3

[Joel Eade]

Although 24 mp is good enough for most wildlife applications I think it's a primarily sports camera .... wait for the R1.

[Fast Glass]

I think that excuse is fine for something like the R6, but at this price point, whether you need it or not, 24mp is a slap in the face after waiting for years for a big upgrade from the previous 1DX line of cameras. Even for sports more than just 24mp is would be useful. It's not 2008 anymore and sensor tech has improved so much it is not even funny.

This is 2021, if a $6,000 flagship (And yes I consider it one at this price point) what will true high resolution flagship cost? 8k? 10k? But even then, will it just be 30mp?

I dunno, Canon is forcing me away at this point. This kind of resolution for that kind of money is getting old. I sort of forgave the 1Dx III because we all thought that mirrorless was gonna wipe the floor. 1Dx II was still an older body and still was a big upgrade as a whole.

Well looks like we simply got a 1DX III with 4 more MP and some cool features for $500 less.

It really is disappointing.

They better get the R1 right or I will just switch. I've shot Canon for so long. But they are just consistently WAY behind the curve. Even Nikon got this right with there new flagship.

I dunno, I should probably end my rant. But needless to say I was beyond disappointed with the R3. And honestly, I was expecting it. I didn't really think Canon would do something like give us something with resolution. But I was holding my breath because it was a radical departure from previous generations of cameras. I guess I was wrong and now I don't really have any hope that Canon will ever release something in the 50mp range for a professional body.

[Kayaker72]

Of course, up to you what you do. My first suggestion though, is, unless what you want is radically more than 24 MP, you may want to wait a bit to see how good those 24 MPs are (assuming that it really is 24 MP). But, I am impressed with the R5 in that there is additional clarity/contrast beyond mere pixel count.

The easiest example is to compare the crop mode in the R5 (17 MP) to the M6 II (32 MP). In a way, this is not a fair comparison, as the M6II image is more highly processed using Topaz AI Sharpen, but as I am traveling (visiting family in Idaho) this is the best I can do at this time.

So, 32 MP M6II sharpened with Topaz AI:
IMG_3705-SAI by kayaker72, on Flickr

From R5, I believe crop mode (17 MP), but same lens from same location, different cropping (to truly compare resolution, click through to flickr and zoom in) but 1 year later:
537A0122 by kayaker72, on Flickr

Is there a difference? Honestly, here I see a very slight difference in favor of the much higher MP count M6II. But that is also an 82MP FF equivalent vs 45 MP equivalent. In other images, I am preferring the R5, even though it has a lower pixel count.

Second, the R3 is Canon's first BSI sensor. Faster readout, potentially less noise. I am very interested to see if we are finally about to see a jump in quantum efficiency from Canon, who have been in the 50-60% range for awhile. Are we about to see less readout noise and a 70-80% QE? That would be amazing at high ISO.

So, each to their own. But I am plenty pleased with the 17 MP crop mode I get from the R5. That said, will the R3 fit my needs? I'll only be tempted if it suddenly opens doors for me that are currently closed, such as performance at much higher ISO. Even then, there are very very few doors closed when using the R5. But if you truly want high MP, the R3 may not be the camera for you. I would encourage you to look at the R5, however.

[Fast Glass]

I understand all that. But I don't think that is really relevant or a viable argument at this price point with todays modern cameras. That is the difference. Canon has already shown they can make solid 45/50mp sensors. If they just threw an R5 sensor in the 3R that would be a huge improvement.

I heard it could be a Sony sensor, which if it is the case it definitely makes this whole situation really lame for Canon not making their own sensor.

Maybe if they were actually listening to their customers instead of living in the past and crippling their stuff they wouldn't be undercut by Sony. Sony was smart and saw how Canon was behind the curve for a long time and took advantage of it.

I know it sounds like I'm arguing for Sony, but I'm a Canon shooter and I love the Canon glass and I love the Canon IQ and colors. I'd rather go Nikon than Sony. But one can't help but notice the trend setting camera bodies they are making.

Here's hoping that Canon will make the R1 a true bad ass.

[Kayaker72]

Fortunately, Canon makes many cameras. It is pretty clear that Canon thinks their target market for the 1Dx and now R3 will be satisfied with 20-24 MPs and are purchasing these cameras for reasons other than higher MPs.

So, the real question is if Canon sees a large enough market for a 1D like body with a high MP sensor. We'll see. For your and several others I have heard talk about it, I hope so. To a very large extent, let's hope the R3 is spec'd well enough to be the "R" replacement for the current market that the 1Dx has targeted, which likely includes the price point. If it is, Canon is more likely to turn the R1 into an all-around beast with high MP.

As for Sony, they've done a great job in terms of grabbing market share over the last 5-10 yrs. What's interesting, is that it has not been at Canon's expense. So, each manufacturer has had a strategy, and, really, both have worked well.

[HDNitehawk]

They never gave us a 1Ds IV. Do we think there will be a high mp camera in a professional body now.

I remember before the 1D X and 5Ds were released there was an individual on this form who claimed to have knowledge that there the high MP line was going to split off from the 1D series and would be a variation of the 5D. He was berated by an individual for that belief here on the forum, but then it came to pass.

I think Canon is driven by profit and it is purely a profit issue. There must not be enough demand from those of us who want a pro series high mp body to make it worth their while.

They have demonstrated they can do it in the past, they could do it again.

[Joel Eade]

This post contains one image from each of the following Canon bodies that I have owned: 40D, 7DII, 1DIII, 1DMKIV, 1DX, 5DsR, 5DMKIV and R5. Can you tell which is which?

[Jonathan Huyer]

This post contains one image from each of the following Canon bodies that I have owned: 40D, 7DII, 1DIII, 1DMKIV, 1DX, 5DsR, 5DMKIV and R5. Can you tell which is which?

Touché!

To add my own thoughts on camera development, a large MP sensor is not always desirable. In electronic shutter mode or with movies, higher MPs mean a higher tendency for rolling shutter problems. Plus of course more MPs mean larger files, which fill up cards & hard drives & buffers, and slow down post-processing work. A lot of sports photographers don't need huge files for most publications, so they are quite happy with 20 MP.

Rolling shutter is getting to be less of a problem with faster processors. So maybe by the time the R1 comes around, it will be a non-issue. A global shutter is another potential solution but it always adds noise to an image.

So as Fast Glass stated, putting a R5 sensor in a R3 body would be a very fine combo. But I'm guessing that Canon is waiting until they can develop a processor that is fast enough to give that system real high speed capability, for example 20 fps with an infinite buffer and no rolling shutter problems whatsoever.

[Kayaker72]

This post contains one image from each of the following Canon bodies that I have owned: 40D, 7DII, 1DIII, 1DMKIV, 1DX, 5DsR, 5DMKIV and R5. Can you tell which is which?

Haha...no, no I can't. So, 7DII and R5 would have the highest pixel density. Even trying to decide which had the most pixels on target is a challenge.

[Fast Glass]

I remember before the 1D X and 5Ds were released there was an individual on this form who claimed to have knowledge that there the high MP line was going to split off from the 1D series and would be a variation of the 5D. He was berated by an individual for that belief here on the forum, but then it came to pass

That was Daniel Browning, he was the camera tech guru for a long time till he got frustrated with Canon and switched to Nikon.

I feel if anyone has a need for a high resolution option it would be the pro, but they act like only the pro segment doesn't have a need for a high resolution option and the pro segment simply has to use the prosumer stuff. It's not the end of the world, but when you make money with your gear and it pays for itself. It would be amazing to have a high resolution and professional option.

All this talk about files sizes and all, you have to remember we are talking about pros here. We are talking about a six thousand dollar camera market. Someone with that budget will more than likely have plenty invested in glass. And any modern thousand dollar PC will handle 50mp files adequately, more you spend the faster your postproduction will be obviously. But that is not that expensive in the whole scheme of things.

Bottom line is this, there is no good reason to have such low resolution at this price bracket and especially for professional use. Any argument simply is outdated at this point. Modern tech has negated any real or perceived disadvantage for high resolution.

I think this matters to me more than before as I am doing photography work on the side and with any luck do it full time.