Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?

[Skyscraperfan]

The R3 would pretty much my perfect cameras (except for being mirrorless), if it had the same specs, but a 1 in its name instead of a 3. I have a hard time spending 6,000 Euros on a camera whose name is indicating that is some kind of second (or third) best camera. Not because of bragging to have the best camera, but for that expected price I suspect the best technology Canon has to offer. Otherwise it has to be a lot cheaper. I still remember the times when the best camera had twice the price of the second best. A "1" would send me the message that Canon did not cripple any specs to leave room for the best camera.

 

[AlanF]

The R3 would pretty much my perfect cameras (except for being mirrorless), if it had the same specs, but a 1 in its name instead of a 3. I have a hard time spending 6,000 Euros on a camera whose name is indicating that is some kind of second (or third) best camera. Not because of bragging to have the best camera, but for that expected price I suspect the best technology Canon has to offer. Otherwise it has to be a lot cheaper. I still remember the times when the best camera had twice the price of the second best. A "1" would send me the message that Canon did not cripple any specs to leave room for the best camera.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet​

Shakespeare

 

[Bahrd]

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose​

By any other name would smell as sweet​

Shakespeare

Was this the same Shakespeare who once twitted that:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

?

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I should follow that Shakespeare guy on Twitter.

 

[Sporgon]

This has been a great education. Thank you. I wonder, then, why does Canon make high MPX cameras?

Just to be clear, I have no argument with someone who wants a 50, 60 or 100 mp FF camera, my argument is with those that say "24mp isn't enough and not up to the standards required in 2021" or "24 mp is low resolution".

When I bought my first 5DS camera I did so because I wanted improved colour definition, not so much resolution and output size. I got what I wanted but I now realise that this was due to the improved tech rather than high mp.

50mp FF does give a slightly superior image at native output size compared with 24 / 26 mp interpolated up, but it is so slight it is really difficult to see, and therefore for the very few occasions that an image is going to be shown at 30 to 36" across, it's not worth it IMO if that compromises the camera / process in other ways; initial cost, speed of operation, processing speed / requirements, data storage etc etc. If you are one of tiny fractions of photographer who routinely produce 36 - 48" fine art prints then 50 mp all the way, but honestly those very few people will want DMF sized sensors anyway. When it comes to real resolution larger format size wins every time. I say "fine art prints" because as the print becomes bigger and bigger a print at lower DPI will actually have more perceived sharpness at the appropriate viewing distance, and so you don't need such a high native output in the first place.

Camera manufacturers have to keep selling their products, and higher and higher mp is an obvious choice whilst the web is awash with experts pointing out how brilliant the data is from these sensors when viewed at 800% on a 5K monitor, so as @privatebydesign says, the manufacturers will produce what people want, and a lot of people want, or aspire to, very high mp. Lets face it, if the only people who bought a 50 - 60 mp camera were those who really needed that output size, then the cameras would either be 20 x the price or, more likely, not produced at all ! So thank goodness for those people who like to view their images at 800% on a 5K monitor, or crop in to micro 4/3 size and still print 24".

Incidentally I looked at the images in your portfolio and they would be good whether shot on 12, 20 or 50 mp Content is king.

 

[sanj]

The R3 would pretty much my perfect cameras (except for being mirrorless), if it had the same specs, but a 1 in its name instead of a 3. I have a hard time spending 6,000 Euros on a camera whose name is indicating that is some kind of second (or third) best camera. Not because of bragging to have the best camera, but for that expected price I suspect the best technology Canon has to offer. Otherwise it has to be a lot cheaper. I still remember the times when the best camera had twice the price of the second best. A "1" would send me the message that Canon did not cripple any specs to leave room for the best camera.

I am confused. You are saying that with the same specs, but with R1 label, the camera would be worth buying?

 

[Del Paso]

Do you have any actual examples of that because when I tried it in the real world with the EF 100L Macro that simply isn't what I found to be true.

Canon to release a 100mp EOS R system camera next year [CR2]

You can also quite clearly see, in DPReview's DR comparison tool, that the D850 (higher pixel density) yields better results under a +5 or +6 push than pretty much anything else, even when starting at ISO 100. Again, one must ask the question, is what DP Review measuring actually DR, or is it...

www.canonrumors.com

Yes, I do.
A friend of mine owns an R5 with EF 100L, I own the 5 DIV with the same lens. Same subject, same iso etc...
After cropping the R5 shot, the flower was frame-filling in both cases. His (R5) showed more DOF, not a huge amount, but convincing for me.
As to sharpness, I can't objectively compare, 2 different monitors were being used.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes, I do.
A friend of mine owns an R5 with EF 100L, I own the 5 DIV with the same lens. Same subject, same iso etc...
After cropping the R5 shot, the flower was frame-filling in both cases. His (R5) showed more DOF, not a huge amount, but convincing for me.
As to sharpness, I can't objectively compare, 2 different monitors were being used.

I meant some kind of actual example you can show us that stands up to the most basic of scrutiny, like the examples I used. I'd bet had you taken a shot from the same place as your friend and resized to the same pixels and crop the images, when viewed on the same screen, would have been practically identical.

When doing comparisons at macro distances it is important to be accurate and methodical to get actual useful data.

To be sure I am not saying anybody that wants an R5 shouldn't get one, I'm just questioning the specific technical detail you suggested.

 

[Del Paso]

I meant some kind of actual example you can show us that stands up to the most basic of scrutiny, like the examples I used. I'd bet had you taken a shot from the same place as your friend and resized to the same pixels and crop the images, when viewed on the same screen, would have been practically identical.

When doing comparisons at macro distances it is important to be accurate and methodical to get actual useful data.

To be sure I am not saying anybody that wants an R5 shouldn't get one, I'm just questioning the specific technical detail you suggested.

I understand what you meant, but, unfortunately, I have no longer access to my friend's pictures. By the way, I wasn't really thinking "R5 45MP", but R1 with, according to the rumors, about 80MP, to get the same pixels cropped and uncropped. My own DOF trials were also based on using the 5DIV and 100L at different distances for the same subject. Despite the loss of sharpness (logical after cropping), most of the time I kept the "longer distance" shots for the gain of DOF.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I am confused. You are saying that with the same specs, but with R1 label, the camera would be worth buying?

Yes, if that was the R1, I might consider it, but I do not want to spend 6000 Euros on a camera that is marketed as non flagship. It feels like spending $999 or so on the non pro iPhone. Of course calling a phone "Pro" is ridiculous anyway.

I don't like that Canon has switched to suggesting that a low resolution sensor is somehow inferior. We saw that with the R5 and R6.

 

[Del Paso]

Have you tried using the EF100-400ii or the RF100-500 ?
I have a 7Dii and the EF100-400ii and find it great for close up near macro as the working distance is more practical . I often use this combo' with a screw on diopter 500D lens which gives a great working distance of about 30-40cm and magnification of up to 0.7:1 (or more if I use 1.4x or 2x T.Cs ), I would like to see how well this would work with an R5.
I have been waiting for the rumoured R7 but it seems a bit doubtful now so will probably save up for an R5 for my bird and close up bug photography.

I fully agree, I love the EF 100-400 for macros too. Ideal for remaining on the path, getting the picture, without destroying the surrounding vegetation. It is my second-often used lens. You just convinced me to get the 500 D dioptre!

 

[koenkooi]

When I return from a photography trip and scan my photos, the first ones I delete are the ones that are not sharp. But, I know what you mean.

I try to delete duplicates first and when those are gone, I have a look at sharpness. It sometimes happens that the only picture I have of something is unsharp, so I keep those.
Since most of my outside the house stuff has been reach limited macro, I can always use room to crop. Be it from a better AA filter (1Dx3 beats RP) or more MP.

 

[Sporgon]

When I return from a photography trip and scan my photos, the first ones I delete are the ones that are not sharp. But, I know what you mean.

There’s a world of difference between an image that is not critically sharp (due to limitations of lens, sensor, film, light, air diffusion etc) and one that is unintentionally out of focus or blurred due to motion. I’m guessing that private is referring to the former and you’re referring to the latter.

 

[neuroanatomist]

There’s a world of difference between an image that is not critically sharp (due to limitations of lens, sensor, film, light, air diffusion etc) and one that is unintentionally out of focus or blurred due to motion. I’m guessing that private is referring to the former and you’re referring to the latter.

Meh. If looking at the image doesn’t slice your retinas to ribbons, drag it to the bin.

 

[privatebydesign]

I understand what you meant, but, unfortunately, I have no longer access to my friend's pictures. By the way, I wasn't really thinking "R5 45MP", but R1 with, according to the rumors, about 80MP, to get the same pixels cropped and uncropped. My own DOF trials were also based on using the 5DIV and 100L at different distances for the same subject. Despite the loss of sharpness (logical after cropping), most of the time I kept the "longer distance" shots for the gain of DOF.

But as my accurately measured shots taken with that same lens (which being internal focusing is subject to larger than normal focal length breathing at macro distances) illustrate that simply isn't true.

Getting a feeling between two shots characteristics can result in confirmation bias unless we do well set up tests that give good accurate data.

Don't forget if you enlarge more, in this case crop, you are reducing depth of field.

 

[rick1]

I don't think that Canon's upcoming release of the R3 is an attempt to get Nikon and Sony users to defect. Rather, they just want to satisfy a need for more mirrorless options among the Canon users niche group. More options is a good thing, even if you and I would not buy an R3. Personally, I don't think the R3 will fall under the disappointment category and I'd sure like to have one but I have never felt like any Mfgs. high end cameras are bargains. That's not who they are targeted for. You want high end specs and results, you have to pay up to play in that market. Again, I'll be very surprised if the R3 is a disappointment and am convinced that most will find it another great tool to get the job done, no matter what the MP's are.

That's what's wrong. Sony is on the attack and has poached a crap load of users from canon, and canon is over here just trying to hold on to their own customers. Canon needs to go on the attack and be competitive in the marketplace. a $6k 24mp camera is not that

 

[Sporgon]

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose​

By any other name would smell as sweet​

Shakespeare

Such a sophisticated forum
When we’re not discussing DR or MP.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sony is on the attack and has poached a crap load of users from canon, and canon is over here just trying to hold on to their own customers.

In 2020, Canon gained ILC market share. So did Sony, but not as much as Canon. Nikon was the big loser. Canon’s market share is greater than the next four manufacturers combined.



It’s sad when a person’s opinions are so strong they can willfully ignore the data that prove their opinions wrong. That’s why we have flat earthers and anti-vaxxers.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Because the customers think they need it. Canon isn't in the business of giving people what they need, it is in the business of making people what they want. People wanted 45mp, 8K, 20fps, etc etc, most of them don't need anything more than an R6, but they aspire to an R5.

The megapixel race is nothing new.
Phones are over 100 MP.
What surprises me is that everyone needs 30 FPS stills now.
I am also well aware in the FPS race in video.

 

[privatebydesign]

Such a sophisticated forum
When we’re not discussing DR or MP.

Yes French and Shakespeare in the same 24 hours! We are going to have to start limiting Alan less he drags us all up a notch.