Canon R3

[Joel Eade]

I think the pro sports shooters and press photographers look more at reliability and perhaps lens availability rather than resolution as a criteria when selecting a camera. Most images are published on-line these days and they have no need for ultra high resolution. They are willing to pay a premium price for ruggedness and reliability.

Certainly they can afford the hardware needed to handle large files but it's just not necessary. They want to move thousands of files quickly with little or no editing.

You might argue that high res is needed for printing and I will agree to some extent but, the female Cardinal image on a log (3rd from the bottom) was shot with a Canon 40D ... It is printed 16x20 and hanging in my kitchen and it looks great.

I think the biggest advantage of a high res sensor is crop ability......you can crop away a large number of pixels and maintain good image quality.

Anyway, like Brant said, they make many cameras .... can't wait to see your images from the R1 !!!

[Fast Glass]

I think we are just gonna have to agree to disagree. We both have been in photography for a long time, we both been part of this group a long time and defiantly one of the most knowledgeable I have been on. There are applications where low resolution is totally fine, and there are cameras for that even in the pro sector. But for the last 13 years Canon has not made an option for those that would like a higher resolution professional option. Many photographers will print their images much much larger and with that in mind 50mp or more has a huge advantage. For other low resolution applications we have S-RAW. Just because some don't need it doesn't mean there is no need for a pro high res option.

My argument is not so much to convince anyone they need to have a high res option or everyone needs it. But it's been a extremely long time since Canon has offered a pro high res option. And that would be very nice to have. Options are good, and Canon in my opinion has been very good in feature department lately. Just make a high res option for some.

The rumors of the R1 are indeed impressive with 85mp. Which if it pans out, would be amazing. But I'm not getting my hopes up like I did with the R3, I personally thought it would have at least 30mp. But at least with the R1, it is a place where having a high res option would make total sense. Even if it is extremely expensive.

We shall see how the 3R pans out, maybe it is so amazing I'll still own one.

[Joel Eade]

I agree!!!

[Karsaa]

For person like me, who shoots mostly at nightime, can say that when i had the 5dsr it was definetly not the optimal to have with northern lights...specially the fast ones. That 50mpix was way too sensitive for any slight wind etc. to make the images blurry. Even though, the mirrorless might be the solution so i would not ming having more pixels for me to crunch for on the night images. R5 should be good night camera also, but have to see the specs for the R3 and also the rumored pixel monster R1.

[Fast Glass]

That's not how resolution works.

Resolution doesn't make it blurry, and the difference from same 20 to 30 mp to 50 will not hide things like that.

In a ideal world where noise is a non issue, and many forms of photography it's already a non issue, you want as much resolution as you can. There are times when it is rendered mute because of diffraction, lens softness or other factors. But it does't make it worse. It just doesn't take full advantage of it all the time. But still better to have it overall.

In your use case it might be rendered mute as you stated, and I can believe it. But as long as the noise performance is there. Doesn't make it worse to have it. You can always down res after the fact or use S-RAW if you want.

And I would imagine a camera like the R1 wouldn't hurt for over noise performance.

[Kayaker72]

I am curious if Canon has made the decision that the "1"series name means more to enthusiasts than pros. Pros will buy what they need regardless of the name/number. Looking at the specs of the R3 and the indications of those that have used it, it certainly looks like the target market of the 1DX lineup is now the same for the R3. But that opens the door for the R1 to be something else. More of a spec leader that competes with all other brands top spec'd cameras.

Previously Nikon and Canon were somewhat on the same page with their "top end" cameras (1Dx vs D4,5, etc). But Sony is different with the A1 being a bit of a spec monster. So, if Canon now sees Sony as their primary competition, which the numbers support, then Canon may pivot the R1 to compete with the A1 and let the R3 soak up the previous 1DX target market.

Following that logic, Canon's future lineup will be something like:

• R1: New Spec monster camera. "Flagship" by todays standards meant to be favorably compared to Sony's A1. Market: Probably more high end enthusiasts and a few pros. But, those that want "the camera to rule them all." type of thing.
• R3: Highest end build, AF, and performance. A true successor to the 1Dx line. Market: Those that want the ultimate reliable camera and are good with only 24 MPs.
• R5: Successor to the 5D line. Amazing all-around camera. Higher MPs, great AF, great build quality and performance. Market: Event/wedding photographers and high end enthusiasts. Good enough for some wildlife/sport pros.
• R6: Successor to the 6D line. More than enough camera for most people. Great IQ, but missing a few bells and whistles. Market: Enthusiasts and a few more budget conscience pros.
• R and RP. I expect these to be replaced with gateway/entry level FF cameras. RP replacement rumored to be ~$800. R replacement, quick guess at $1,600.
• Others:
  
  • R5C. Cinema version of the R5. Better heat control, no 30 min limit, and video first mentality. May come out as a C50 or something like that.
  • R5S. High MP R5. An 80-120 MP sensor in the R5 body limited to ~8-9 fps. This is the high MP camera I have been expecting.
  • Cropped Sensor RF mount. Often rumored, I am not sure I buy into this camera. APS-C primarily existed to save costs as you could pull many more APS-C sensors off the same wafer as FF sensors. But, I read that this benefit is largely gone as wafer manufacturing costs have come down. So, are the other benefits of APS-C really worth the investment in camera and a few dedicated RF-s lenses? Is there room between camera phones and the rumored $800 price point of the RP replacement? Maybe 1 body and 2 RF-S lenses at $500/$200/$200 as a gateway to the RF system?

I fall into the camp that resolution is only one aspect of taking good photos and past a certain point, other aspects become much more important. So, I am much more interested in what else the BSI sensors can do to reduce noise/improve high ISO performance than MPs. That said, as I have thought about all this, as I have considered the R3 specs, I think Canon will either use the R3 as a placeholder and drop it after the R1 is announced or, if they keep the two, will sufficiently differentiate the R1 from the R3, which could most easily be done with MPs and a few other features.

We'll see. Idle speculation.

[Joel Eade]

Also the R1 is likely to have the 1 series body with built in vertical controls and bigger battery .... unlike the Sony Alpha

[Joel Eade]

That's not how resolution works.

I think he means images from high res sensors are more likely to show the effects of camera shake because the pixels are so small and densely packed.

[Kayaker72]

That's not how resolution works.

This is actually very tricky. As you mention, in an ideal world where resolution can be scaled up without penalty, it is true. More resolution is always your friend. But in actuality, there are issues and penalties that are paid. So, I am going to talk a bit about those.

I think Kari was more suggesting that the additional resolution would not be of benefit in the circumstance he cited due to motion blur. Which it seems we all recognize and agree.

But, and you references this, just point out the potential issues of increase resolution in Kari's scenario, he'd also likely be fighting increased read noise issue in low light if he needed to use higher ISOs in low light.

Using the R5 and R6 as a comparison (nice, as same generation, very different resolutions):

Granted, at ISO 100 and ISO 400, they are about the same. But, as you increase ISO, the R6 has a little over 1 stop benefit in read noise over the R5. Moving more electrons = more noise

And this is not just Canon. This is comparing a few of Sony's cameras:

Even though the 7R II is older tech than the newer but higher MP 7R IV, it has lower read noise and the 12 MP A7S has much lower read noise.

And there are others, besides read noise. Before microlenses, there was the entire issue of losses to pixel sidewalls that increased with decreasing pixel size. Even post microlenses, which are not 100% efficient, there is still more difficultly in moving light to hit pixels as they get smaller and smaller. There is also the issue as some pixel sizes are starting to get into the size of light wavelengths (remember, "pixel size" as photographers calculate it is actual pixel + pixel sidewall) and red wavelengths start at 0.7 microns.

In a ideal world where noise is a non issue, and many forms of photography it's already a non issue, you want as much resolution as you can. There are times when it is rendered mute because of diffraction, lens softness or other factors. But it does't make it worse. It just doesn't take full advantage of it all the time.

This is why I almost didn't respond. But, hey, what fun would a discussion be then. Third world in is key...ideal. In an ideal world I agree. In the non-ideal world, I think we just need to be aware of and consider the issues that arise with increased resolution. You mention noise, diffraction, lens softness, but there are also motion blur, shutter shock, other camera vibrations, etc that all can impact that additional resolution. For example, on the R5, I am trying to shoot at 2x shutter speed to get consistently sharp images. But, after that, you have file size and all the issues with handling and storing that additional data including: data transfer is taxed, some components heat up, cards/memory fill up faster, and you have more computer lag when working with the photos. As I understand it, one reason "pros" might prefer lower resolution is the handling of the files: 20-24 MP gives them what they need and avoids all the other issues. I noticed going from my 5D3 to 5DIV and really noticed going to the R5. Matter of fact, I finally got the parts to replace my old computer which was often freezing up as LR imported the files from the R5. Never had an issue with the 5DIV.

And, then the question gets to be how much resolution do you need? My largest print is 16 x 24" which, at 150 to 300 ppi is 8.6 to 34.5 MPs.

There is probably a great Venn diagram that could be made here between pros and cons of additional resolution.

As for me, right now I am hoping that the R1 isn't a placeholder and also isn't a monster, but more MPs, say 35-40 MP if released in 2022 or maybe up to ~50 MP if released 2023-2024. But then there is a R5S released in the 80-120 MP range for those that really crave it. Amazingly, if you think of the throughput of the R5, 45 MP at 20 fps indicates that the Digic X could do 7.5 to 11 fps at those MPs. wow.

[Fast Glass]

The main noise increase will come from loses from adding more pixels. Which has improved immensely over time. But I think the difference is not as pronounced as you might think, certainly not one stop in a fair comparison.

What you are seeing is just magnifying similar noise levels a lot more. But not because there is that much loss in adding the extra pixels.

The right way to compare say the R6 and the R5 would be to down res the R5 to R6 resolution. Then you will see the difference just in loses associated with adding extra pixels and not just zooming into the already existing noise.

Alternatively you can also upres the R6 to R5 resolutions to compare detail that way.

And what I mean by many forms of photography not needing high ISO's. I do a lot of portraits in natural outdoor light with primes, so I am always at ISO 100, ISO 200 if I am using Highlight Tone Priority.

If I'm doing landscapes I am not ussualy using high ISO either. 400 except in unusual circumstances.

If I'm doing birding, which I have not done in a while. Want to get into sports and I have done some events. Then yeah, I'm cranking those ISO's quite a bit. So clean files gonna be import for sure for stuff like that.

But with modern cameras being so good, we can raise those levels more and more every generation. I'm still using the 1Ds III and 1D III with good success, especially for the money. Definitely not as good for events and sports that I want to do. But I think it iliatrates a point that some don't need super high ISO's and some don't need super high resolution. And I think we agree on this.