Canon EOS R6 Mark III Resolution Increase?

[EricN]

That's not what I'm saying at all. It is that Canon (and other companies) constantly develop design philosophies that vary from model to model, and each appeals to certain groups. This is why we consistently see comments, "I won't buy this! I'm burning all my Canon things and buying brand (Fuji) x," but in the same post about the same product, "OMG!!! I will name my first child Hironori!"

 

[neuroanatomist]

Exactly my point. Those saying "this feature is because Canon is listening to their pros and anyone not wanting it isn't a pro" don't understand product design.

Your straw men just keep getting more pathetic. Who, besides you, is saying that?

Those stating that, “People on this forum are saying no one and especially no pro photographer can possibly use a camera with as few as 24 MP,” need remedial education in reading comprehension. Oh, that’s not what you’re saying, @MikeGalos? Yes, I know…because I can comprehend what I read.

It’s obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence, though perhaps not to you, that 24 MP is an appropriate number of pixels for a very large number photographers, including pros. The alternative possibilities that Canon and Sony are stupid companies ignoring the needs of their customers by releasing 24 MP pro-level cameras is simply asinine (and that you seem to think that’s the case is unsurprising).

 

[MikeGalos]

Your straw men just keep getting more pathetic. Who, besides you, is saying that?

Thinking 24 MP in 2025 is ridiculous is ridiculous. Pros certainly think it is enough, I guess not photographer wannabes.

 

[MarcosTO]

What about printing?
I shoot mostly small birds and I crop very frequently. I still use a 5D Mrk IV. 30MP still delivers, but I would appreciate maybe an extra 5MP.

 

[John Wilde]

That doesn't answer my question. The majority of Canon's sales are from their lower tier products like the R100 and R50 -- irrelevant to the professional space.

"Canon has solidified the number one spot in multiple categories for cameras and lenses in the U.S. This includes: #1 in Interchangeable Lens Cameras, #1 in Mirrorless Cameras, #1 in Full-Frame Mirrorless Cameras"

- Canon USA Press Release

 

[neuroanatomist]

@MikeGalos that reply was manifestly in response to a silly troll post. But sure, take it seriously and believe that @Quack meant that 24 MP is as much as every professional photographer would ever need. Whatever gets you through the day.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Product designs are trade-offs between many factors, many of which are not factors that are best for the customer but factors that are best for the company.

Of course, this is true.
Big and small businesses work like this.
This is no grand conspiracy.
My main problem is when customers thing their concerns are more important than every other customer.
The market is what decides what sells.
People buy products that they think are good enough.
I am in a market where returns are easy, so we return what we do not like.
People still complain that products are not as good as they think they could be, but they were good enough to buy in the first place.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That doesn't answer my question. The majority of Canon's sales are from their lower tier products like the R100 and R50 -- irrelevant to the professional space. How many R1 or R3s does Canon sell compared to Sony's A1 or A9?

Sony claims to be the leader in Full Frame sales: https://petapixel.com/2024/09/18/so...t-in-the-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-market/

The R5
II is a closer competitor to the a1 than the R1 is.
The R1 is more of a competitor to the a9 III.
The R3 is more of a competitor to the a9 II.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

"Canon has solidified the number one spot in multiple categories for cameras and lenses in the U.S. This includes: #1 in Interchangeable Lens Cameras, #1 in Mirrorless Cameras, #1 in Full-Frame Mirrorless Cameras"

- Canon USA Press Release

That is only true for the USA and does not filter out RP and R8 sales.

 

[roby17269]

@MikeGalos that reply was manifestly in response to a silly troll post. But sure, take it seriously and believe that @Quack meant that 24 MP is as much as every professional photographer would ever need. Whatever gets you through the day.

While I do agree that plenty of pros are well-served by current pro cameras (unless they are all masochists), Quack has implied openly, more than once, that there is no merit in wanting more than 24mp, by calling the ones who do "wannabes" and "idiots" and other terms of endearment.
If he doesn't believe that, he has a strange way of expressing himself.

 

[neuroanatomist]

While I do agree that plenty of pros are well-served by current pro cameras (unless they are all masochists), Quack has implied openly, more than once, that there is no merit in wanting more than 24mp, by calling the ones who do "wannabes" and "idiots" and other terms of endearment.
If he doesn't believe that, he has a strange way of expressing himself.

Thanks for the correction. In that case, @Quack is also making statements with the intelligence of a duck.

I do not believe that viewpoint is representative of this forum, but as with many debates there are level-headed people and those making asinine statements on both sides.

 

[scyrene]

What about printing?
I shoot mostly small birds and I crop very frequently. I still use a 5D Mrk IV. 30MP still delivers, but I would appreciate maybe an extra 5MP.

Remember, MP count ≠ resolution. Changes to the AA filters on more recent bodies have resulted in higher resolution per megapixel.

 

[AlanF]

What about printing?
I shoot mostly small birds and I crop very frequently. I still use a 5D Mrk IV. 30MP still delivers, but I would appreciate maybe an extra 5MP.

An extra 5 mpx would give only an 8% increase in resolution, equivalent to having a 432mm lens rather than 400mm, or 520mm rather than 500mm, all things being equal. 30 to 45 mpx gives a 22% increase, so a 400mm on 45 mpx sensor would be like a 490mm on a 30mpx, and a 500mm would be like a 610mm on a 30 mpx sensor (or a 680mm lens on a 24 mpx). It scales up similarly for printing. A 45mpx sensor should enable a 22% longer side of the print with same pixellation as using a 30mpx sensor, and 35mpx an 8% longer side.

 

[John Wilde]

That is only true for the USA and does not filter out RP and R8 sales.

Feel free to counter with data about worldwide professional full-frame camera sales. I have never seen the availability of such data.

 

[markschneider]

I have been excited about the R6M3 for quite some time. But as I see the potential specs, I wonder how much I will benefit?
I have the R6M1. I do not shoot sports or anything fast moving. I don't shoot burst mode. No videos. No issues with my camera. I don't think the extra MP will benefit me as I don't print photos. I usually shoot with external light - so stacked sensor would be nice (I they offer it) but not critical. I don't shoot electronic, so no worries about distortion. I migrated from the 5DM4 and had no regrets. Would I realize a major advantage going from the R6M1 to the R6M3? Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[EricN]

I have been excited about the R6M3 for quite some time. But as I see the potential specs, I wonder how much I will benefit?
I have the R6M1. I do not shoot sports or anything fast moving. I don't shoot burst mode. No videos. No issues with my camera. I don't think the extra MP will benefit me as I don't print photos. I usually shoot with external light - so stacked sensor would be nice (I they offer it) but not critical. I don't shoot electronic, so no worries about distortion. I migrated from the 5DM4 and had no regrets. Would I realize a major advantage going from the R6M1 to the R6M3? Thank you for your thoughts.

I usually take a wait-and-see attitude. One thing about a higher resolution is that you can do more with editing. So, that could help with low light, along with the stacked sensor. How much will most likely be heavily debated. I would not expect to notice like a two-stop difference, but who can say? It's always a good idea to save money, isn't it?

 

[Chig]

I have been excited about the R6M3 for quite some time. But as I see the potential specs, I wonder how much I will benefit?
I have the R6M1. I do not shoot sports or anything fast moving. I don't shoot burst mode. No videos. No issues with my camera. I don't think the extra MP will benefit me as I don't print photos. I usually shoot with external light - so stacked sensor would be nice (I they offer it) but not critical. I don't shoot electronic, so no worries about distortion. I migrated from the 5DM4 and had no regrets. Would I realize a major advantage going from the R6M1 to the R6M3? Thank you for your thoughts.

If you're not shooting action just stick with your current excellent camera and buy a new lens instead

 

[bn5fg]

buy a new lens instead

But you’d still have to get a Sony camera first—there simply aren’t any lenses for the RF mount!

Or, since they've dominated the pro market for decades they don't need to listen to their pro customers because their pro customers have decades of investment and are locked in. Oddly, Nikon and Sony also listen to their pro customers and those pros seem to be telling them a different message.

REAL pros shoot ONLY Sony—because results don’t lie. Meanwhile, Canon wannabes and impostors waste time coping on Canonrumors while Sony shooters land 6-figure gigs and steal your girl with their cinder-block grip. Alpha males use Alpha cameras to crush jobs and dates with their brick-handed rizz.

 

[roby17269]

I have been excited about the R6M3 for quite some time. But as I see the potential specs, I wonder how much I will benefit?
I have the R6M1. I do not shoot sports or anything fast moving. I don't shoot burst mode. No videos. No issues with my camera. I don't think the extra MP will benefit me as I don't print photos. I usually shoot with external light - so stacked sensor would be nice (I they offer it) but not critical. I don't shoot electronic, so no worries about distortion. I migrated from the 5DM4 and had no regrets. Would I realize a major advantage going from the R6M1 to the R6M3? Thank you for your thoughts.

I shoot fashion / beauty (hobbyist) and I can't get enough megapixels I use the R5 occasionally, but mostly a P1 IQ180 (80 mp digital back) and love the ability to crop deep to get multiple images out of 1 frame.
You shoot with controlled lightning, therefore there are not many downsides to higher resolution. Noise wouldn't be an issue and the flash will freeze motion... personally, I shoot slow so file sizes are not a problem since I rarely take more than a few hundreds images in a day of shooting (around 400 frames for 5 looks in my latest shoot 1 week ago).

 

[Michael Clark]

What about printing?
I shoot mostly small birds and I crop very frequently. I still use a 5D Mrk IV. 30MP still delivers, but I would appreciate maybe an extra 5MP.

Printing is about linear resolution, both of the camera and the printer.

35MP vs 30MP is only an 8% increase in linear resolution.

Then there's the whole question of what your specific printer's resolution is in pixels per inch. (Not dots per inch, which are individual droplets of a single color of ink.) If the printer's resolution and the camera's resolution don't line up well for a particular size print, you can get all kinds of interference pattern artifacts. In the old days this wasn't so much an issue because the size of ink droplets was large enough that they got blurred out because the droplets were larger than the pixel pitch of the printer. But now with smaller and smaller ink droplets, it can become an issue with inkjet printers.

Not so much with laser exposed chemical paper prints, where a laser exposes true photographic paper which is then chemically developed just like in the film days. (The lasers can be incredibly precise, but the light sensitive grains in the paper are not arranged in a rigid grid, so pattern interference is much less of an issue.)