Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: PeterAit on September 15, 2021, 05:03:24 pm
-
I saw the announcement of the Canon R3, their new $6k flagship camera and was prepared to be awed. But on reviewing specs it is very disappointing. It clearly loses out to the Sony A-1 in every important aspect. So what gives? Unless someone has a closet full of Canon lenses I cannot see a reason to buy this camera.
-
You are clearly not the target market for this camera.
Working Sports and Wildlife pros recognise that 24 mega pixels is more than enough. We dont want or need more. More is just a storage headache with no benefit. It decreases high ISO performance (which we need) and creates storage issues.
99.9% of people who own Sony A1's will never print anything large enough to warrant the mega pixels in that camera. In fact, 99.9% recurring of people out there dont even print anymore and just upload to the web - where frankly, 4 mega pixels is enough.
It is important to recognise that the R3 is not even trying to compete with the Sony A1. Comparing them is is just silly.
-
You are clearly not the target market for this camera.
Working Sports and Wildlife pros recognise that 24 mega pixels is more than enough. We dont want or need more. More is just a storage headache with no benefit. It decreases high ISO performance (which we need) and creates storage issues.
99.9% of people who own Sony A1's will never print anything large enough to warrant the mega pixels in that camera. In fact, 99.9% recurring of people out there dont even print anymore and just upload to the web - where frankly, 4 mega pixels is enough.
It is important to recognize that the R3 is not even trying to compete with the Sony A1. Comparing them is is just silly.
I'd like to see some low-light comparisons. But I disagree about the pixels. It's not about big prints but about photographing animals that are far away and being able to crop severely and still get a useful, sharp photo. When my wife, a skilled bird photographer, moved from a 24MP A9 to the 50mp A1 her ability to capture distant birds was much improved. Thanks in part, of course, to the astounding G-Master glass.
And with 4 TB disks available for a bit over $100, I really cannot buy complaints about storage woes.
And only 1 fast SD slot on the R3? Hmmm...
-
24MP is pathetic in this day and age. Canon knows well how to part someone from his/her money. As Peter has correctly pointed out, the more the pixels the more the headroom for cropping (an important consideration for those who shoot birds).
It is for the same reason I have stayed with my Canon EOS 5DS (50MP) instead of switching to the 45MP R5. Hopefully the next Canon upgrade to the R5 will be at least 80MP, hopefully 100+ MP. Regardless of my intended output I would like a very high MP body. No storage headaches here (I have got enough SSD storage to fill all the dark matter in the universe and then some).
-
Each to their own I guess... I can just tell you as a working pro wildlife photographer (and thats all I do for a living) 24 MPX is more than enough. Funnily enough, all the other pros i know agree with me - sport and wildlife.
-
Each to their own I guess... I can just tell you as a working pro wildlife photographer (and thats all I do for a living) 24 MPX is more than enough. Funnily enough, all the other pros i know agree with me - sport and wildlife.
you have a web site??
-
Each to their own I guess... I can just tell you as a working pro wildlife photographer (and thats all I do for a living) 24 MPX is more than enough. Funnily enough, all the other pros i know agree with me - sport and wildlife.
I don't dispute that the R3 meets your needs and that one can do exceptional work with this body (as you obviously do). It is just that you were pooh-poohing those who want a higher MP count. Even though I don't do bird photography, I would very much want a 100+ MP mirrorless body for landscape and other work (for eg, downsampling a very high MP image may have the effect of reducing apparent noise).
PS: Not a "pro" (and I thank God every day for that)
-
you have a web site??
Of course - http://www.jholko.com (http://www.jholko.com)
-
I don't dispute that the R3 meets your needs and that one can do exceptional work with this body (as you obviously do). It is just that you were pooh-poohing those who want a higher MP count. Even though I don't do bird photography, I would very much want a 100+ MP mirrorless body for landscape and other work (for eg, downsampling a very high MP image may have the effect of reducing apparent noise).
PS: Not a "pro" (and I thank God every day for that)
Didn't mean to poo poo high MPX.. just point out that most folks 'think' they need it, but actually dont.
There really are only two arguments for high MPX that make sense.
1. You need to print that size (and lets be honest, a fraction of a fraction of photographers with these cameras actually do)
2. You like to crop heavily - and this is a very valid argument. I prefer to use big, fast telephotos, but I understand not everyone has that luxury.
Downsampling a high MPX file can reduce noise, however, its not a free lunch.
Another caveat - Diffraction will frequently annihilate your resolution advantage.
All of that said, there is a place for high MPX cameras. It just isn't in the R3. Thats a tool for people like me who want and need high speed, ultra sensitive high ISO clean files.
If I was shooting something other than wildlife, and my friends were shooting something other than F1 for a living we would be looking at very different tools.
All Im saying ultimately, is its important to recognise that the R3 was built for a very specific purpose. That purpose is to serve the needs to people like me. The Sony A1 was built for a different purpose and it suits those that want those features perfectly well.
-
Didn't mean to poo poo high MPX.. just point out that most folks 'think' they need it, but actually dont.
There really are only two arguments for high MPX that make sense.
1. You need to print that size (and lets be honest, a fraction of a fraction of photographers with these cameras actually do)
2. You like to crop heavily - and this is a very valid argument. I prefer to use big, fast telephotos, but I understand not everyone has that luxury.
Downsampling a high MPX file can reduce noise, however, its not a free lunch.
Another caveat - Diffraction will frequently annihilate your resolution advantage.
All of that said, there is a place for high MPX cameras. It just isn't in the R3. Thats a tool for people like me who want and need high speed, ultra sensitive high ISO clean files.
If I was shooting something other than wildlife, and my friends were shooting something other than F1 for a living we would be looking at very different tools.
All Im saying ultimately, is its important to recognise that the R3 was built for a very specific purpose. That purpose is to serve the needs to people like me. The Sony A1 was built for a different purpose and it suits those that want those features perfectly well.
Thanks. I concur.
-
Didn't mean to poo poo high MPX.. just point out that most folks 'think' they need it, but actually dont.
There really are only two arguments for high MPX that make sense.
1. You need to print that size (and lets be honest, a fraction of a fraction of photographers with these cameras actually do)
2. You like to crop heavily - and this is a very valid argument. I prefer to use big, fast telephotos, but I understand not everyone has that luxury.
Downsampling a high MPX file can reduce noise, however, its not a free lunch.
Another caveat - Diffraction will frequently annihilate your resolution advantage.
All of that said, there is a place for high MPX cameras. It just isn't in the R3. Thats a tool for people like me who want and need high speed, ultra sensitive high ISO clean files.
If I was shooting something other than wildlife, and my friends were shooting something other than F1 for a living we would be looking at very different tools.
All Im saying ultimately, is its important to recognise that the R3 was built for a very specific purpose. That purpose is to serve the needs to people like me. The Sony A1 was built for a different purpose and it suits those that want those features perfectly well.
I think you could add increased ISO performance with larger photosites that come with lower pixel counts. One of the principle advantages along with higher frame rate that cameras like this provide. I routinely use high ISO to maintain high shutter speeds for BIF or shoot in low light without flash.
Nice work on your web site! Nice to be able to travel like that!
-
100% - larger photo sites , better high iso performance and lower noise are the key factors for me personally. Always battling low light and getting sufficient shutter speed in my work.
The big unknown for me is how does the R3 perform in extreme cold for extended periods. The 1DX MK3 has been amazing in this regard and I have shot with it in -40ºC all day without problems. Ive had those cameras so cold and frozen that literally buttons were frozen in place and they still keep working. The mirrorless cameras I have tried from Canon and Sony all fell over after a short period of time from temps of -20 and below. The Sony in particular was woeful because of its small battery.
I suspect the R3 might be ok because it has a bigger battery and more mass.. but I have my doubts around the EVF - those a re a real problem in extreme cold. Need to test it and see.... I plan to take one to Ellesmere Island in Winter in March next year on an expedition to search for White Wolves. That should be a real torture test for it with temps between -30 and -50 every day.
-
I suspect the R3 might be ok because it has a bigger battery and more mass.. but I have my doubts around the EVF - those a re a real problem in extreme cold. Need to test it and see.... I plan to take one to Ellesmere Island in Winter in March next year on an expedition to search for White Wolves. That should be a real torture test for it with temps between -30 and -50 every day.
Good point on cold weather. I don't think I could adjust to blackout or sticky motion in warm weather either. For wildlife I am sticking to a DSLR (Nikon D5 in my case) until mirrorless is perfected a bit more. By the way.. for scenery, macros etc.. I have no problem using my Fuji GFX 100s.. so I have no issues with mirrorless cams for the right application.
-
The argument that 24mp is enough is just silly. The R3 sounds like a great camera and is among the best in most areas. But it’s imaging sensor is 4 years behind.
It’s only enough because Canon isn’t able to compete with Sony and Nikon in terms of speed and resolution. Josh is a great photographer but also one with a working relationship with Canon.
The moment a 50mp R1 will be released all those praising the R3 will abandon it instantly and never look back.
It’s all too obvious that if presented with a 24mp vs 50mp file all the clients will pick the higher res one. And there are going to be 50mp files available. And more so every day that passes by. We’ve been there before.
There were times where people were willing to buy P1 backs doing 1.2 fps, terrible usability, heavy,.. mostly to get 39mp vs 24mp. These days you can get 30fps at 50mp with an a1 or Z9 with incredible AF performance (probably for the Z9). Why settle with 24mp?
The last time such a huge competitive gap happened in 35mm equipment was the 1Ds release. Those equipped with canon lenses will strive to find ways to rationalize that 24mp is great, just like APS-C pro body owners were trying to rationalize that Nikon was still the right horse to bet on. I know, I was one of them. And yes, it will be possible to capture amazing images with the R3, no doubt. These images will just not have the same level of future proofness as those shot by competitors equipped with Sony or Nikon. Why is likely to have a very concrete impact on mid term revenue.
-
Downsampling a high MPX file can reduce noise, however, its not a free lunch.
An A1 downsampled file has both exactly the same high ISO SNR and Dynamic range as the huge 20M pixels of the 1DX III's sensor:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-III-versus-Sony-A1___1352_1365
These days you can get 30fps at 50mp with an a1 or Z9
I doubt these days you can even take pictures with a camera you cannot yet buy Bernard.
Couldn't it be that you both are respectively a bit biased towards Canon/Nikon? :D
Regards
-
An A1 downsampled file has both exactly the same high ISO SNR and Dynamic range as the huge 20M pixels of the 1DX III's sensor:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-III-versus-Sony-A1___1352_1365
I doubt these days you can even take pictures with a camera you cannot yet buy Bernard.
Couldn't it be that you both are respectively a bit biased towards Canon/Nikon? :D
Regards
Could you please at least quote me entirely? I included “probably for the Z9”.
But considering that the R3 has 2 months until availability the actual ship time of both cameras may not be that different. Not to speak about the usual comment that the R3 will actually not be orderable in meaningful quantities anyways.
Nothing against the R3, it’s a very competent camera and I applaud Canon for their work on eye focusing that seems well designed. It’s just that the sensor is 4 years behind.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Could you please at least quote me entirely? I included “probably for the Z9”.
But considering that the R3 has 2 months until availability the actual ship time of both cameras may not be that different. Not to speak about the usual comment that the R3 will actually not be orderable in meaningful quantities anyways.
Nothing against the R3, it’s a very competent camera and I applaud Canon for their work on eye focusing that seems well designed. It’s just that the sensor is 4 years behind.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sorry.. thats like saying 'probably the R1'. Z9 is vapourware. Granted R3 is not delivered before November, but we know what we are getting.
If Im not mistaken Nikon has said the Z9 is their flagship. Canon has clearly said the R3 is not. You have to wait for the R1 if you want to make an apples to apples comparison. Not that its meaningful in any way.. its the image that counts and not the camera that took it.
Some of you are far to worried about the tool. These days no camera is the limiting factor folks. The limiting factor is the human holding the camera.
-
Could you please at least quote me entirely? I included “probably for the Z9”.
The quote was not because the Z9 "probably" bla bla bla Bernard, it's because the Z9 is simply not yet on the market so you cannot have one of those these days. BTW just like the Canon R1, that will "probably" have a lot of Mpx too.
Regards
-
The quote was not because the Z9 "probably" bla bla bla Bernard, it's because the Z9 is simply not yet on the market so you cannot have one of those these days. BTW just like the Canon R1, that will "probably" have a lot of Mpx too.
Right… sorry no time for kinder garden level conversations…
-
I agree with Josh that sports photographers do not need more than 24MP.
Why use 50MP if you can tell the same story with 24mp and 50 mp works 2x slower?
Speed is what counts and 99% of these photos only make it to the internet.
Cropping a 24mp image still provides enough quality for that platform.
-
Another caveat - Diffraction will frequently annihilate your resolution advantage.
I don't understand this. I know what diffraction is but what does it have to do with high MP? Thanks.
-
Why use 50MP if you can tell the same story with 24mp and 50 mp works 2x slower?
Speed is what counts and 99% of these photos only make it to the internet.
How does 50MP work 2x slower?
-
How does 50MP work 2x slower?
Exactly. A1 is 50mp and it sure is not slow.
-
I agree with Josh that sports photographers do not need more than 24MP.
Why use 50MP if you can tell the same story with 24mp and 50 mp works 2x slower?
Speed is what counts and 99% of these photos only make it to the internet.
Cropping a 24mp image still provides enough quality for that platform.
In recent surveys its actually more like 99.999% of photographs taken never make it to a medium other than the internet. And 4MPX is enough for the internet given most images are posted in 2k or less and then compressed anyway.
There is an unusual subset of photographers here on LULA that still print (myself included) and that accounts for a large part of the 'give me more mpx'.
That said, I just uprezzed a 21 MPX Canon 1DS M K3 file to 55 inches on the long edge for a client using Topaz gigapixel and the results are truly amazing. Most of the time I am just printing 16" on the long edge on 13 x 19 inch paper though and 20mpx is more than enough for that for a 300 PPI print.
Returning to the R3 and the original topic - for Sports and wildlife photographers this is a pretty incredible tool. All the initial tests of its new AF system are that its pretty phenomenal at tracking and staying locked on. Personally, I am looking forward to testing one in November.
-
I don't understand this. I know what diffraction is but what does it have to do with high MP? Thanks.
In brief, the higher the MPX in a given sensor size (and lets talk full frame 35mm) the smaller the well size where the photons get captured. The smaller the well size, the harder it is for the photons to enter the well and thus the lower the signal to noise. Lower MPX sensors have better signal to noise ratios than higher MPX sensors. BSI sensors help a little with this, but ultimately you cant beat physics - smaller well sizes (higher MPX) = higher noise at a given ISO than a lower resolution sensor.
In terms of diffraction - the smaller the well size on the sensor the faster you run into diffraction. A 24 MPX sensor has much larger wells than a 50 MPX sensor so the 50MPX sensor will run into diffraction well before the 24 mpx sensor at a given f-stop. As such, a 50 MPX sensor will be diffraction limited far sooner than a 24 MPX sensor. What does this mean?
It simply means, once you hit the diffraction limit on the 50 MPX sensor you loose your resolution advantage. Its not that the 50 MPX sensor will look worse than the 24 MPX, its just that it wont look any better; you loose the advantage of the extra MPX. Exactly where diffraction occurs is complicated as it depends on the lens used, the sensor design and atmospheric conditions. You can certainly see it clearly though if you take the time to test this.
To be clear, Im not stating the 24 MPX sensor is better - it isn't (and the 50 isn't better than the 24 as it depends on the lens used, the f-stop the image is shot at and the particles in the air between the lens and subject). This is simply the physics of it.
-
I often shoot 1:1 and crop.
I'm grateful for all of my 46,000,000 pixels.
;)
-
In terms of diffraction - the smaller the well size on the sensor the faster you run into diffraction. A 24 MPX sensor has much larger wells than a 50 MPX sensor so the 50MPX sensor will run into diffraction well before the 24 mpx sensor at a given f-stop. As such, a 50 MPX sensor will be diffraction limited far sooner than a 24 MPX sensor. What does this mean?
Diffraction is an effect solely of the lens aperture. The pixel pitch does come into play in terms of image rendition. This link has a good discussion -
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
-
Diffraction is an effect solely of the lens aperture. The pixel pitch does come into play in terms of image rendition. This link has a good discussion -
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
not just the lens... due to the circle of confusion shown by the airy disk in that link, smaller photosites are less tolerant to diffraction effects (illustrated nicely in the linked example that shows aperture vs pixel size). that is why I shoot wide open and focus stack for macros with my GFX 100s which has a 3.76 micron pixel pitch.
of course, for wildlife where I need at least f/8 most of the time, I prefer the larger photosites with the accompanying improved ISO performance which I need even on a good day to keep my shutter speed high.
-
The same caveats caused by diffraction on high density sensors can be said about any other parameter/phenomena affecting the sharpness of the image the optics project on the sensor:
- Diffraction through aperture used
- Motion blur through subject movement
- Handheld trepidation through exposure time/IS limitations
- Focus through not perfectly focused subject
- Image sharpness through lens resolution limitations (MTF)
- Loss of detail through an intrusive AA filter (this could paradoxically play to favour high density sensors since it's on them where the AA filter can be more safely removed)
All of them can contribute to close the gap in terms of real information captured between high and low density sensors.
The most important message here however is to make clear that high pixel count cameras will never produce lower detail images, being the opposite the general rule.
Regards
-
Right… sorry no time for kinder garden level conversations…
No Kindergarten at all, it's rather about you not grasping the final picture in professional mirrorless cameras:
- Sony: low res pure action (A9 II), all purpose (A1)
- Canon: low res pure action (R3), all purpose (R1)
- Nikon: all purpose (Z9)
Regards
-
I agree with Josh that sports photographers do not need more than 24MP.
Why use 50MP if you can tell the same story with 24mp and 50 mp works 2x slower?
Speed is what counts and 99% of these photos only make it to the internet.
Cropping a 24mp image still provides enough quality for that platform.
This is a very photographer centric way to look at things that is IMHO not relevant in the tough competitive world we live in.
Photographers are in the business of selling images and are not acting in isolation. They have competitors attending the same events and taking similar pictures.
From the client's point of view, why would anyone buy a 24mp file if a 50mp file is available?
Are they going to do it to be nice with the photographers who choose Canon and cannot both get speed and resolution with the R3?
Not to mention all the value brought by cropping for many sports where action can be distant, such as soccer, baseball, track & fields, gymnastics,...
Canon UK officially commented that an R1 is coming. Even Canon appears to be trying hard not to sell the R3. For 1DxIi ot III owners better to buy bitcoins and to wake up from sleep mid 2023.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is an unusual subset of photographers here on LULA that still print (myself included) and that accounts for a large part of the 'give me more mpx'.
Think ahead, a few years from now, 8K monitors will be common and they will also ask for more mpx.
-
This is a very photographer centric way to look at things that is IMHO not relevant in the tough competitive world we live in.
Photographers are in the business of selling images and are not acting in isolation. They have competitors attending the same events and taking similar pictures.
From the client's point of view, why would anyone buy a 24mp file if a 50mp file is available?
Are they going to do it to be nice with the photographers who choose Canon and cannot both get speed and resolution with the R3?
Not to mention all the value brought by cropping for many sports where action can be distant, such as soccer, baseball, track & fields, gymnastics,...
Canon UK officially commented that an R1 is coming. Even Canon appears to be trying hard not to sell the R3. For 1DxIi ot III owners better to buy bitcoins and to wake up from sleep mid 2023.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, this is just utter nonsense. In thirty years of being a professional photographer not once has a client EVER asked me for more MPX, or asked how many MPX a file is, or how many MPX was used to make the print - not once; not ever. And this is not just the case in my genre. My good friend who shoots F1 for a living has never been asked either! Clients just DONT care about resolution. The only people who care are photographers who believe more is better. It simply isn't; and more importantly, the paying client doesn't care.
I have many pro industry contacts with working photographers in the commercial space. Even they tell me clients dont care! Its not important to them. One very good friend who shoots commercial for a living has Canon and a high MPX Phase and offers the phase to clients as an upsell. He tells me fewer than 1 in a 100 clients want it, need it or care. So lets deal with the real world and recognise that its the photographer that cares - not the client.
Since bashing Canon is clearly in your DNA I wont bother even retorting to the rest of your post. It would be a waste of my time.
-
Bernard, this is just utter nonsense. In thirty years of being a professional photographer not once has a client EVER asked me for more MPX, or asked how many MPX a file is, or how many MPX was used to make the print - not once; not ever. And this is not just the case in my genre. My good friend who shoots F1 for a living has never been asked either! Clients just DONT care about resolution. The only people who care are photographers who believe more is better. It simply isn't; and more importantly, the paying client doesn't care.
I have many pro industry contacts with working photographers in the commercial space. Even they tell me clients dont care! Its not important to them. One very good friend who shoots commercial for a living has Canon and a high MPX Phase and offers the phase to clients as an upsell. He tells me fewer than 1 in a 100 clients want it, need it or care. So lets deal with the real world and recognise that its the photographer that cares - not the client.
It's not nonsense, it's just a different genre than you work in. I'm regularly commissioned to produce large high quality prints that will be viewed up close. These clients are very savvy on the whole image pipeline, have production experience and expectation of a certain quality finished product.
-
Bernard, this is just utter nonsense. In thirty years of being a professional photographer not once has a client EVER asked me for more MPX, or asked how many MPX a file is, or how many MPX was used to make the print - not once; not ever. And this is not just the case in my genre. My good friend who shoots F1 for a living has never been asked either! Clients just DONT care about resolution. The only people who care are photographers who believe more is better. It simply isn't; and more importantly, the paying client doesn't care.
I have many pro industry contacts with working photographers in the commercial space. Even they tell me clients dont care! Its not important to them. One very good friend who shoots commercial for a living has Canon and a high MPX Phase and offers the phase to clients as an upsell. He tells me fewer than 1 in a 100 clients want it, need it or care. So lets deal with the real world and recognise that its the photographer that cares - not the client.
Since bashing Canon is clearly in your DNA I wont bother even retorting to the rest of your post. It would be a waste of my time.
I agree with much you have said and have similar experiences. That said, I've been commissioned to produce files for prints up to 84 inches long side that are intended for close viewing. I'd simply rather have the MP than not.
Let's face it, it's very much a case of horses for courses.
-
Bernard, this is just utter nonsense. In thirty years of being a professional photographer not once has a client EVER asked me for more MPX, or asked how many MPX a file is, or how many MPX was used to make the print - not once; not ever. And this is not just the case in my genre. My good friend who shoots F1 for a living has never been asked either! Clients just DONT care about resolution. The only people who care are photographers who believe more is better. It simply isn't; and more importantly, the paying client doesn't care.
I have many pro industry contacts with working photographers in the commercial space. Even they tell me clients dont care! Its not important to them. One very good friend who shoots commercial for a living has Canon and a high MPX Phase and offers the phase to clients as an upsell. He tells me fewer than 1 in a 100 clients want it, need it or care. So lets deal with the real world and recognise that its the photographer that cares - not the client.
Since bashing Canon is clearly in your DNA I wont bother even retorting to the rest of your post. It would be a waste of my time.
Great then. Why is Canon coming up with an R1?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great then. Why is Canon coming up with an R1?
Possibly for a similar reason that Nikon produce a Z6 and a Z7, Leica produce an SL2 and an SL2-S, an M10 and an M-10R, and Sony ..., and Fuji and on and on...
Different uses, different requirements.
Having said that , it's totally beyond me why anyone would limit themselves to a 42/50MP box instead of buying into the new Fuji 100 ...
[/gently-stirring-the-pot-with-that-last-one]
Edit:
Do we have any reliable information on what the spec on the R1 sensor will be ?
-
...Having said that , it's totally beyond me why anyone would limit themselves to a 42/50MP box instead of buying into the new Fuji 100 ...
[/gently-stirring-the-pot-with-that-last-one]...
Heft and girth, my friend, heft and girth...
;-)
-
Possibly for a similar reason that Nikon produce a Z6 and a Z7, Leica produce an SL2 and an SL2-S, an M10 and an M-10R, and Sony ..., and Fuji and on and on...
Different uses, different requirements.
Since the D3x neither Canon nor Nikon have produced a non action focused full spec body. Are you saying the R1 is going to be a high res slow body?
I seriously doubt it. I believe the R1 will be the canon version of an a1/Z9 which is what the R3 should have been today had Canon been able to deliver.
Having said that , it's totally beyond me why anyone would limit themselves to a 42/50MP box instead of buying into the new Fuji 100 ...
[/gently-stirring-the-pot-with-that-last-one]
Because it's AF is pretty poor? :-)
I own one btw. It's nowhere near a Z7II AF wise.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think it is about the photo and it contents, that people want it,
not about the amount of pixels...
So being able to make the photo is what counts... in many cases it is a phone.
-
Since the D3x neither Canon nor Nikon have produced a non action focused full spec body.
Are you saying the R1 is going to be a high res slow body?
(...)
Because it's AF is pretty poor? :-)
I'm not saying or speculating what the R1 will or will not be. Just noting that there are several companies that have two models within the same series. In Leica's case the SL2s is biased towards motion but is proving to be an in-demand product.
Certainly the R3 seems to be more than 'motion' capable and its eye AF has had some rave reviews all of which would be a plus for many togs.
(https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/8527058472/three-moments-with-the-canon-eos-r3-that-changed-my-opinion-of-eye-control)
-
I think it is about the photo and it contents, that people want it,
not about the amount of pixels...
So being able to make the photo is what counts... in many cases it is a phone.
Well, these cameras will mostly be used by pro shooters shooting the same action side to side in sports venues. Same positioning as the D6 and 1DxIII.
The pictures will therefore be mostly the same.
The only difference will be their technical qualities, in particular resolution.
Why would a client presented with 2 identical images buy the lower res one?
This is a very real and simple question that should worry agencies and their photographers. If not now in 5 years for the images captured in the meantime. Because as much as 24 already feels low in 2021 how low will it feel in 2026 when everyone in the stadium will do shooting higher res images from their phones?
Sure, if nobody else got the shot 24mp won’t kill a sale. But this is not the kind of situations these cameras are designed to handle.
Josh is looking at this question as a brand topic, but this is simply common sense. Just think of the press Nikon would be getting if they were the one stuck at 24mp with the R3 at 50mp. It would be seen by most reviewer as an obvious sign that Nikon cannot keep up with the pace of technology and is a dying company.
-
I saw the announcement of the Canon R3, their new $6k flagship camera and was prepared to be awed. But on reviewing specs it is very disappointing. It clearly loses out to the Sony A-1 in every important aspect. So what gives? Unless someone has a closet full of Canon lenses I cannot see a reason to buy this camera.
The way I would see it, 24 MP is good enough for many purposes.
Also, getting 24 MP resolution in the real world may not be easy. It is also about having clean air, with little thermal turbulence but also about getting accurate AF.
Just as an example, I was testing my Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3G at 600 mm on my A7rIV under 'studio conditions' and had huge variation in resolution depending on AF. The lens could reach say 40 MP, but most exposures were around 20-24 MP in resolution.
On the other hand, large pixel advantages and diffraction may a bit of bad information (AKA BS or FUD) from vendors.
Light collection is dependent on sensor area. If you collect N photons, it doesn't really matter if collect them in 25 million or 100 million bins. But those 100 million bins give you twice the spatial resolution.
Diffraction is an aspect of light and a function of aperture. With most lenses, diffraction will not cause a serious degradation below f/11. But, that degradation may be more noticeable on a higher resolution sensor. Simply because the more you have the more you have to loose.
Comparing two different sensors at actual pixels are misleading, as the images are viewed at different sizes. The proper way to compare is at the same size and that is tricky, too.
Sony used to make sensors that combined high DR at base ISO with high resolution. Nikon also uses Sony's technology.
Canon had the5Ds models with 50MP but it seems that most photographers prefer the 5DIV with 30 MP, that may be with or without good reason.
Here is a small write up on 'Elements of Image Quaöity': https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64406737
And here is a comparison of four cameras at A2 size prints: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65520799
As a side note, 'Flagship camera' may be misleading. Just because a camera is most expensive it is not clear that it is best for a given purpose. I would guess that landscape photographers may be better served by the Canon R5 than by the Canon R3, just as an example.
Being mostly a landscape shooter, I wouldn't regard the Sony A1 a worthy upgrade over my Sony A7rIV, as I don't use AF mostly and almost always use single frame with delay.
Best regards
Erik