Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
What you might regard as "high quality" depends on quite a lot of factors, including size of print, viewing distance and subject matter. I've seen excellent portraits and sports shots from low res cameras, but for subjects that contain a lot of fine detail, more megapixels is generally a good thing.
I freely admit to being a pixel peeper - I view my photos at 800% and press my nose up against my 5K monitor when I'm editing them...
I also often need to crop fairly heavily when editing wildlife photos, so I like a lot of pixels!
Technical quality is very much secondary to subject matter, lighting, composition etc which are what distinguish a great photo from a mediocre one, but I like, as much as I can manage, to have really sharp, finely detailed and noise-free shots. All of us have different thresholds of acceptability, and judge images in different ways. If someone is happy with 12mp, who am I to argue?
Upvote
0
I’ve been using 5DS cameras for over five years now and the conclusion that I’ve come to is that viewing an image at 800% on a 5K monitor is one of the few instances where the 50mp makes sense. This assumes of course, that viewing an image at 800% on a 5K monitor makes any sense in the first place.
Upvote
0
Yes I know, and this is where, I believe, the desire for higher and higher mp comes from, not from the desire to actually output high quality images. Hence why many professional photographers aren’t so hung up on very high mp.
Upvote
0
I wonder who Canon designed the R3 for…I suspect their target market wasn’t people who routinely view images at 800% with their noses pressed to a 5K monitor.
Upvote
0
I edit my 30MP shots from the 5DMkiv the same way...
I'm not in the market for an R3 or R1, and wouldn't be even if they had 100MP, as I don't want a gripped camera. R5 has a few shortcomings, but I can't think of anything else, regardless of brand or cost, that I'd choose in preference.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The desire for higher MP initially comes from all the advertising hype. It often convinces people that they must have features that they don't really need. I bought my 5DS primarily because of the increased ability to crop, which is valuable for wildlife photography and allows the use of shorter, lighter and less expensive lenses.
There are some negative aspects to high MP of course - blur from camera shake and subject movement is harder to control as MP gets higher - and the noise at ISO 800 or above on the old 5DS was pretty awful. For those reasons I shot the bulk of my images with the 30MP 5DMkiv.
My experience with the latter taught me that I wouldn't personally be happy with less than 30MP for wildlife photography, although it was fine for landscapes and sports. For various reasons (eye-AF, silent shutter, faster burst speed), I decided to abandon the DSLR boat and get a FF MILC. The choice for me was between the Sony a7Riv and the Canon R5. I chose the R5 and it suits my style of working very well.
Upvote
0
Don't worry about it. I've been accused of making up facts when expressing my opinion here.The actual minimum figure I've seen quoted to make 8K possible is 33.17mp.
What is 8K? And what does it mean to photographers and videomakers?
With the Canon EOS R5 and Sony A1 now a reality, here's all you need to know if you're wondering "What is 8K?"www.digitalcameraworld.com
I think this would be a figure that pleased most camps. The sports guts who prefer 24mp would probably be content to settle for 33mp, as the file sizes would still be quite small. Those who are still convinced that "less is better" regarding DR and noise would also probably be OK with 33mp, as would the 8K guys. And although I personally would prefer 45mp or thereabouts, most of the hi-res seekers would also probably find 33mp an acceptable compromise.
Note the multiple use of "I think" and "probably", to keep a certain poster happy that I'm just expressing an opinion
Continue your contributions to this forum, and not worry over bullying behaviour.
Upvote
0
Can’t wait for this camera to be announced, ordered and in my hands, such excitement.
An unknown price for a photo centric unconfirmed MP count camera that will probably be released in 2021. Imagine all the angst that seems to cause some people.
An unknown price for a photo centric unconfirmed MP count camera that will probably be released in 2021. Imagine all the angst that seems to cause some people.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I felt the same thing when I put down a deposit on the R5 last February... no regrets!
Upvote
0
Okay, still huge file tho, considering the discipline that require high fps demand you to stay out for long time
Well, diffraction exist, better avoid high pixel count unless, you shoot wide open all the time
Diffraction already hit R5 at f11, that's huge limitation
Upvote
0
Sure you can. Of course! But the huge prints will look better with a 50mp FF camera.
Upvote
0
It is a huge limitation, as all the limits of physics are. But not as big as having a lower MP camera in the first place.
For example, the 45 MP R5 has 1.5 times as much linear resolution ("reach" for birders) as the 20 MP 1DX III. If at f/11 diffraction begins to diminish the actual resolution of the images coming out of the R5, that means its relative advantage over the 1DX III shrinks. But it does not immediately vanish, it gradually decreases as apertures becomes more narrow.
What's worse? Using a high resolution body and requiring the right conditions (shutter speed, aperture, light) to capture high detail images? Or using a low resolution body and being limited by the camera even if the other conditions are perfect?
If you don't need the high detail / reach, you of course don't benefit from a higher resolution. But there simply is no IQ penalty for using modern high resolution bodies. They are not more limited than lower resolution ones.
Upvote
0
Which is the better question, as increasing the f number and focal length at the same time is the only way to upgrade a lens without making it something completely different.
A 400 mm 5.6 and 500 mm 7.1 need the 71 mm diameter opening. 500 mm 5.6 needs 89 mm. That's a 57 % increase just in area, and has of course additional implications for size and weight of a lens, which are proportional to how much glas is in the lens.
A 100-500 mm 5.6 would not have been a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400mm 5.6.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
