Good with it. Sold my R5 and kept the R6. Hopefully, the R3 will be under 6K. BTW you need the start a Patreon, I'm so in. Thanks again for all the replies to my stupid questions and for helping me out. Thanks, G!
@@GaryHughesOfficial I've never had the opportunity to observe when printing ... But it looks good in photoshop. If I remember correctly, it somehow creates extra pixels... 10 mp enough for a lot of (HUGE) things, with using blow up. ua-cam.com/video/rULM3-zXMzM/v-deo.html
This is a great video and perspective... I fully agree... I have printed plenty of images off the nearly 15 year old 5d Mark ii 3x5 feet and it worked great and had it's own characteristics. I currently shoot on the Mark iv and my clients get 2x3 foot prints all the time and it is plenty for that. So for me the megapixels aren't my deciding factor here but rather the auto focus and low light capabilities and pixel quality.
Just found your video and appreciate your take, I am a full time professional and have shot many billboard, editorial and large print images on 22 to 30mp cameras. I started in 1982 and come from a manual focus, non in camera metered, medium format film background as well as 35mm film. It’s about the right camera for you, what the end image will be used for, whether you have a clue what you are doing, etc. With a proven track record at 30mp or less, I don’t need a Sony with 50mp. Many ( not all ) talking about megapixels likely do not need as many as they think they will. If the R3 is not a fit, it’s simple…move on and stop whining.
When I was making the choice to get the R6, I was coming from a Nikon d800 (36mp) and I was very nervous. After hearing multiple professionals say they could make large prints from a 20mp camera or even lower I was sold. Been shooting with the R6 since. I will be getting the R5 for more cropping freedom but now I won’t worry as much about it. Great video, Gary. Keep up the great work!!
I wouldn't call that thing you did a test. It's like testing three electric cars with 200, 250, and 300 miles reach but doing only 100 miles test. Try the canon r6/r5 images, crop 1/4 or 1/8 out of them and then you can compare your prints.
Well that’s not a bad idea, I might just try that. The point, though, is that for the vast majority of photographers out there, quibbling over megapixels is pretty pointless. The “test” I did speaks to that. Thanks for watching
Nobody thinks you can’t crop MORE with higher megapixels…. But the fact is most people who complain about low megapixels have never actually cropped and printed large I have dropped a Nikon D700, 12.1mpx, to 5 megapixels and then printed 13x19 on my own printer…. Standing an inch away I could MAYBE tell there was something amiss if I knew to look for small variations in pixels But if you were standing at normal viewing distance…. And especially if you didn’t know it was cropped…. Nobody would be able to tell I highly recommend this to anyone who thinks 24mpx is “too low” Remember they used to print billboards and shoot covers of NatGeo and Sports Illustrated with a 12mpx flagship just 10 years ago But all of a sudden you need 60mpx to do the same, according to “the internet”
Couldn't agree more. It comes down to that most people don't know what a megapixel actually is or how it works. I had a billboard campaign for a client I shot on an 8MP camera. Thanks for the feedback!
I've printed 36x24 with a 24mp rebel T7 and they were awesome. Not many walls in normal houses can handle bigger than a 3 foot picture. Also don't forget about the cost of getting a 36x24 file printed. 24 mp is absolutely enough.
I was looking for printing topic, and this video brought me to your channel, and I really appreciate the way you explain these concepts, Gary. Now you have a new subscriber here. I'm gonna check all your videos since I'm passionate about photography. Thank you!
Excellent timing Gary! I have been stewing over the Canon R5 and R6 because of the vast difference in megapixels between them. I think you just saved me some money! Thanks!
The difference is nil if you are just using them as FX cameras. The difference is huge if you want to switch them to DX crop mode. I bought the R6 and sold it for the R5 because in crop mode, for extended reach, the R5 is still an 18mp camera. Now you should see the light. Yes, the R5 is two cameras in one. That is where you save money. After using 4 camera bodies for most of my career (Nature and Wildlife), I now use just 1. Do more research before you buy.
Awesome video once again Gary! My original R is doing me just fine and I plan on using it for years to come regardless of the newer versions that come along.
Great review! I’ve made a lot of prints for my clients at 44” on my Canon Imageprograf 4000. All from a 1Dx2 with ‘only’ 20mp. I’ve never had a costumer complaining about a lag of sharpness… if you have a high quality file the mp’s most of the time don’t matter. So I was very pleased to see your video about the high mp myth …
On the Canon 4000, was that using the canon standard software or a fancy aftermarket RIP? I started printing big in-house back around 2005? when the Epson 9800 was their newest large format but I had it custom set up with a Studioprint RIP which allowed larger printing at much higher quality. This was a lot more important back when a 1Ds was only Mp in the teens and the sensors were not as advanced as they are now.
Great video! It’s really great to see someone talking about actual printed image quality instead of just pixel peeping! In the case of the m50, and you touched on this a bit, Canon’s aps-c sensors are small. 2.6x (surface area) smaller than their full frame sensors. This means that if you were to extrapolate the size of the photosites on an m50 to full frame, you have roughly a 62mpx sensor. Not that this really matters, but it does kinda put the idea of better image quality from larger photosites to rest. Great video! For me high res is really about the crop ability. If you don’t need to crop your images, (or print VERY large) than 24 mpx is more than enough!
Gary, you are not an idiot fortunately, but there is a single point I would make. As mainly a event and wedding photographer sometimes I need to crop big as I see composition in post I may not have seen when I am shooting documentary style. That’s for me the reason I have an R5 and RF lenses as they are so sharp and stand up to the occasional heavy crop. This versatility is the only reason that 24MP is not enough for me. It’s a safety blanket if you will. If you are a portrait photographer you should be filling the frame most of the time but if you do some sports or wildlife then cropping is going to be part of you workflow as it is mine.
Okay that’s fair, but here’s the next question. As a wedding and event photographer, how are those cropped images used? Online? Prints? Albums? Even if you have to crop half the image away, that’s still a huge file. Is it a corporate event? They use those on social media? A reception shot? Well that might be as big as 8x10 in an album. My point isn’t that you, personally don’t need 45MP, it’s just that if most photographers really sit and think about the end use of the file, cropped or no, the number of MP isn’t always relevant. Thanks for watching and for your feedback :)
Nice video, Gary! Thank you for doing this test. I think it’s a very good topic because beginner photographers always worry about the MP. I shoot Nikon at 45 megapixel, but always end up resizing to lower resolution. You should do more videos on UA-cam btw 😜
Thanks, Yulia, I want to make more :) running the studio and raising three girls takes up a ton of time at the moment, but I’m working on it. Thanks for watching!
@@GaryHughesOfficial I have one little boy and a mom to watch him and I still can’t manage, so I don’t know how you do it then :) but I love watching your videos and you as a speaker. You made us all laugh at WPPI with your funny humor :)
Thanks for taking the time with this but the only way to do the test is compare different resolution cameras and look at the large print (60 inch) differences.
Well Barrie, we are gonna disagree there. The point here was to print large (larger than most photographers would print) and to show that 18MP is more than up to the job for large prints. Now, what I could have done differently was to eliminate the other two cameras and just show what 18 MP can do, then in another video, compare 18 and 45 MP in a large print. Live and learn, I guess. The moral of the story is that very few people who complain about the number of MP in a camera actually understand what they are complaining about. Having a ton of MP is sexy (I own the R5) but unnecessary for most shooters. Thanks for watching and for your thoughts, maybe I will put together a comparison with the R5 next :)
Hi I want advice from you. I have been shooting for a year and a half and I have a Canon 5d IV and I was thinking of buying a Canon R5 for me. Should I stay with the 5D and improve myself and learn how to see the camera? What will help me and take the new one?
The 5D4 is an incredible camera and will be some for many years. Those 5 series cameras just keep on going. I don’t think that a mirrorless camera will make your photography any better, but sometimes new equipment does inspire us to create. You just have to find a balance there :) thanks for watching.
Depends what you shoot. Mirrorless is a different experience, providing new capabilities; seeing exposure in real-time as you adjust settings; not having to go to Liveview (or whatever Canon's equivalent is) on the LCD and suffering slower, less accurate contrast-detect AF if you want to shoot without using the viewfinder; having much better AF capability, including face- and eye-detect; being able to shoot remotely using your smartphone (with Nikon, anyway). If those things are of value to you then a move to mirrorless could be worth it. On the flip side, you'll need more batteries... But I'm sure the 5D IV is a great tool to develop your skills. (I shoot Nikon, as you probably gathered.)
Videos like this help me, because choosing a new camera gets real complicated real fast, especially if you're on a limited budget. Camera features, like the size of the sensor and autofocus capability, play a big part, but then you have to think about the lenses too. For someone like me the Canon R3 would be a huge investment. Instead of spending $6000 on a body, maybe I'd get better results buying a cheaper body like an RP or R7 and then spending $4000 to $5000 on good lenses. It might be easier to just marry a photographer that already has some nice gear. :)
My experience is that I get a new body every couple of years while lenses last ten years or more (at least). The RP and the R7 (I own both) are very capable cameras.
Great video Gary. As you know, it's easy to get caught up in the MP race. I currently am shooting sports and using an R5. The great thing about having the higher MPs is the cropping ability. With many events the distance your shooting from is such that cropping is a much better option than buying a 400mm 2.8 lens.
Yes, totally get that. But how much do you crop away typically? What do you do with the images afterward? Is the extra resolution needed for the final usage? Maybe so, but I think if most photographers asked themself if they really needed it, they might find they don’t. Thank you for watching!
@@FishinMagik yes, in as perfect world that's always better. Not everyone has the glass to do that, though. I agree with you but I see the other point of view as well. Thanks for your feedback!
I'm new to printing and I'm trying to understand how I should translate my images to the printer when I send to a studio. They ask for 270-300ppi, but if I do that with a 24MP sensor I could only get 14.8 x 22 inches (270 ppi). So how do you make such big prints? I'm genuinely trying to learn how to prepare a file for printing big.
I’m not expert, just an advanced amateur when it comes to printing, but my process is this: I edit my raw file, convert it to a 16 bit TIFF file, open and edit in PS, save as TIFF, and print directly from the TIFF file using Canon Print and Layout software. I don’t resize up or down. All the while working and Adobe 1998 color space. For a lab, for most prints they will handle the sizing up or down for you as long as you send them a full resolution jpeg. Make a note that they usually work in SRGB as that’s what most photographers tend to work in by default (and most of them don’t understand color space to begin with).
@@GaryHughesOfficial Ok. I'm taking notes on this. I don't have the means to buy a printer, so I should still export a jpg at the right size or let the lab resize it? Or send a TIFF to the lab?
Shooting some boxes and a faceless mannequin probably doesn't result in images full of the details one would hope to capture with a high-megapixel sensor. Probably not a good test, right from the get go. What do you think?
Have another look, there was loads of texture, color, and detail in the scene. Now, if it was a close up of just a mannequin on a white wall, I’d agree with you. I’ll keep it in mind, though, when I put together any similar tests. If you like, I can send you one of the prints :) Thanks for watching and for your feedback.
Great video bud! I was worried about a 30 megapixel large print of Moraine Lake. I printed it 4 ft by 3 ft and when I received the print I was so happy how it turned out. I would have gone larger but hind sight is 20/20!
Absolutely, I think that the vast majority of people, especially the people who the R3 is meant for, are going to do just fine with 24MP. I would even bet that a lot of them don't want more MP.
I like the R5 for its 45 mp so that I can crop and print. I shoot bird/wildlife and you can hardly get close to the subject. For wedding, portrait, products, etc, you are close to your subject and you don't need to crop much.
Certainly that’s a good point. Depends on what lenses you have access to and what you’re shooting. If you need to make extreme crops and make large prints, 45MP might be a good choice.
Which is why Canon said this is for professional sports/journalism. They specifically excluded wildlife. This is a niche camera. This isn't for film makers, wildlife, wedding, portrait, etc.
@@iKeto_gal I did see in the official announcement that the left out wildlife photographers. Definitely seems like a niche camera that is testing out some really cool new tech that we will get versions of in other cameras moving forward.
@@GaryHughesOfficial, Thanks. But then it confuses me that 4k ultra HDTV looks so sharp on such a large screen. I would have thought that an 8k photo would not look that good at that size.
@@factChecker01 well you have a lot to unpack there, but you are talking about the native resolution of the screen. I am hardly the expert on this particular subject, but I bet there are loads of YT videos on the subject.
@@GaryHughesOfficial, Thanks. The reason I asked is that my normal way to view my photos is on a HDTV screen. (I gave up on large-format transparencies) It surprised me when I realized that the 1080p HDTV resolution was so crude (1,920*1,080=2,073,600)
Am a wedding/head shot photographer here in Uganda and i use a nikon d700. i have been printing 59.4 x 84.1cm and they really look amazing. thanks Gary
I have a D700. It's a classic and I'm not remotely surprised that you can print that size. I also have a Z6 but I'll happily still pull the D700 out at any shoot. My rule of thumb is that viewing distance for normal folks would be about 3x the print's longest edge; in your case, about 2 1/2m. I'm sure they look great at that distance and 'only' having 12MP is irrelevant. A good image is a good image; well-composed, well-lit, well-posed, technically solid, shot with the appropriate glass. Those are the things that matter.
High end Canon sensors in my opinion have a certain look about them, i had 1D MK iii's 10.1 MP and the quality was stunning for the MP. Not sure how this all translates to printed images but clearly from your tests most of these sensors are capable of producing nice large prints. Now the R1 is going to be 24 MP so i understand this kind of proves that you don't need much more unless your cropping heavily, and to me noise is always better controlled in these sensors.
Thanks for awesome video which reaffirms the lesson, it's the quality of the MP, more than the quantity. My only complaint is you're not a Lumix Ambassador as I shoot with Panasonic gear. 🙂
Great video and I fully agree in principle. The only advantage of more megapixel is the possibility to cary fewer lenses. I have the R5 and with a couple of RF lenses. Just carrying the R5 with the 70-200 with me on the longer end would substitute a 100-400 because of the outstanding optical quality of the lens and the possibility to crop. But I am still considering to purchase the R3 and sell my R5 since I also have the 100-500 and I do not like the file size of the R5. I also would prefer a better high ISO quality of the pics and I hope the R3 will deliver that.
I am interested in purchasing an R5. I saw a few videos and complaints about the hot shoe on the R5/R6 getting loose in less than a year. Has anyone heard of this issue? Does the R3 have this problem?
Exactly Garry! I noticed that my old 7D at 18 mp did a fantastic job. I bought a second hand 7D mark ii for wild life after have the 80D for a year and a half. Plenty of resolution for my needs. The megapixel craving is somewhat of a deep well. The more you have, the more you want.
I personally disagree. Having owned the 5Ds for most of its life since the day it arrived in the market, 50 mpxls has been optimal for me. Moving to 60 mxpls (Sony) has no appeal to me. What I get a little tired of hearing about are the “issues with larger file sizes. I use an Asus gaming computer; it has always had enough computing power for such files. Of course, all storage is done with external hard-drives. But these aren’t too expensive now either. A 1 TB SSD IS ~$179.00. Hardly a cost-prohibitive purchase given what we’ve paid for an R5 and L-series lenses.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Truth be told, prior to buying the R5, I shot with 5DM3 and 5Ds in every photoshoot. Every so often I’d look at the images in LR and have to double check to see which camera an image was shot with. All else being equal, I want the extra mpxls. But that is simply MY preference.
Sure thing. There is no question as to whether or not a photographer would like more MP (all things being equal). The question is, do most photographers NEED it for their work? I think for the vast majority of photographers, the answer is no. Whether or not you view the additional time and expense of larger files as important to you, well that’s up for you to decide. Thanks for the feedback.
Hi, I shoot birds and wildlife, I currently have a 30 megapixel 5D mk4 and canon 600mm F4 mk2 with 2x extender, that's 1200mm at f8 and I still need to crop. I'm sad that the R3 is only 24mp,, it should have been at least 30mp. Also 30fps with electronic shutter and possible distortion ? I'd stick to the 12fps mechanical shutter. Think my next camera will have to be the R5 with battery grip... Canon missed the mark again.
This is definitely the use case that I have heard about the most for high MP. As I am looking at the manual, press releases, and marketing materials, it is very clear that the R3 was not designed with bird photographers in mind. And you know what, that’s okay. I think the R5 seems to be the best choice for that use case considering price/features. If and when there is an R1 and it’s 50 MP but $8k, would you buy that? I will be interested to see if they don’t come out with an R3s that has a higher resolution sensor.
@@GaryHughesOfficial thanks for the reply, nice channel and very professionally done. I'm loaning an R5 soon but I had a play with one and without the battery grip it feels like a toy, the R3 is a much better feeling package, I had a play with a pre release version a few days ago. I have a feeling the R1 will be a more robust version of the R3 with not a huge megapixel sensor. If 30+ megapixels is too large in file size, there could have been in camera options for smaller sizes. The R3 could have been the ultimate wildlife/birding Canon camera so far.
I do miss the adjustable sizes of RAW you used to get from Canon. Came in very handy for volume work. I think many of us are interested to see what the R1 will look like.
I feel like the pictures you had taken also do not require much resolution to make them look good as well. Meaning the toy, the manikin with the ties.... Not really a whole lot going on there. What about a mountain with trees and snow in areas along with a sunset? That is much more detail to capture and would likely show in this test. Also, there really isn't a large difference in megapixels here, try the 18mp against a 33mp or a 33mp against a 61mp. And try a taking a photo that matters then tell me the difference.
Well I appreciate that it wasn’t a perfect, scientific experiment in the truest sense, just an illustration. The fact remains: most photographers aren’t doing anything with their images that warrants 60MP. Those that are, will likely choose a camera that is not the R3 :) I think I actually said that landscape photographers might prefer the R5 in the conclusion of the video ;) thanks for watching
There are a few good arguments in favor of more megapixels. For instance: cropping in wildlife photography. Frequently you can't get close to wildlife, even with a huge lens, so you end up cropping. Having those extra MP means you're not going to lose detail in the feathers or in the eye. Also, there are people that can see the detail loss when printing larger prints with fewer MP. They are few and far between, but it would be just my luck to get an eagle-eyed client. That said, I've printed at 24x36 with a 22 MP sensor on a 5D Mark III and it looked just fine.
I definitely get the argument for wildlife, but I also think that argument won’t stand up for too much longer. PS can already quadruple the size of a RAW file with AI. As that technology develops even more, digital upscaling could make resolution mostly obsolete. Thanks for watching and for your feedback
I make 74x36 prints on a number of occasions and had a request for a 107x70 that I didn't feel confident. I am one of those people that see the detail loss and met a couple others that notice it right off the bat too. I would have prefered to see the comparison on an actual larger format picture.
@@Darqueprophet Tony Northrup did that experiment, though he didn't make increasingly larger prints which would've been cost prohibitive. Instead, he cropped down. The results were fairly conclusive: more megapixels is better in larger prints. Some people could definitely see it. Gary is saying that AI is getting better at upscaling the photos but I'm ready to take the Pepsi Challenge on that tactic. I'm not saying he's wrong but I will go out on a limb and say it probably works better on less complex subjects.
@@Darqueprophet I wish I had a larger printer too, lol. I will have more similar content coming forward and will come up with some more scientific testing to make the point I want to make. Thanks for watching!
AMEN brother! All these MP nonsense is getting ridiculous. There only a few specific applications where one might actually (need) a lot of MP, specially for cropping, and that's about it. The camera industry is brainwashing a lot of people making them think they "need" a high MP.
VERY Compelling! I'm a sad bigger is better old man. I was struggling over the 24 MP sensor...... Now I need to look at what all the other features of this offering.
I am a recently converted, former “bigger is better guy”. I am very interested to see this 24MP sensor on the R3 as it will be totally new. The potential for quality with the new technology is pretty great. A very high-quality, full-frame 24MP sensor has a lot of exciting possibilities. We shall see.
The benefit of higher megapixel is when cropping is required in fast action shots such as birds in flight. A major crop on a 24 megapixel you could end up with 12 or 8 megapixel print.
That’s true, certainly. But even a 12 or 8 MP file can enlarge beautifully. Not to mention, that really only matters if you plan to make very large prints (which most don’t) Even then, PS can quadruple the size of a raw file pretty flawlessly with its AI now. So, yes you’re right, but it’s not a strictly a huge problem except for what I would guess is a small subset of photographers. Thanks for watching and for your feedback :)
If you’re cropping to that extent then there’s probably something wrong with you wildlife technique. Also cropping by that much brings in problems such as any lens issues such as softness, off focusing, camera shake, then there’s atmospheric conditions. Go on any social media and you can tell the images that have been cropped by any large amount to the kind you’re suggesting. If you don’t have a high quality lens capable of resolving those megapixels, then you’re basically throwing away much of them.
In retrospect, I probably should have. Maybe in another video? I have been doing nothing but thinking about follow ups to this since I posted it :) thanks for watching!
24 megapixels means you can print 20x30 inch prints at 200 dpi with no upscaling. Factor in "smart" upscaling computer programs combined with shooting in 14 bit RAW and you maybe can get the effect of 250dpi when printing at 20x30.
Let’s be honest. The quality of these newer camera sensor are amazing. 24 MP is fine. Even for print. I print large files from my drone shots, 20 MP. Pictures look fine.
Even for seasoned amateurs going for a higher resolution camera isn’t entirely illogical, here’s why: Not all subjects are suited to the rectangle format print, some subjects are only suitable to be photographed in the square format, if you used a 24MP camera to photograph in the square format, the print would be too small at 16”x16” max; but if you use a 45MP camera you could photograph your subject using the 1:1 square aspect ratio which will give you 36”x36” square prints. Prior to the advent of digital photography, even seasoned amateurs used 6x6 Medium-Format cameras which gave them square images. Thus high resolution cameras have advantages even for amateurs.
That's an interesting way to look at it. I guess the point here was exactly that: what's the use case. The R3 doesn't seem to be the ideas for people who need/think they need all those pixels, but my main question was: How are the images going to be used after you crop them? If you are cropping square, but all the images are 1024 pixel e-commerce photos, then the extra pixels aren't as important as they would be for someone who shoots for large print campaigns and needs to leave a lot of room for cropping in the design afterward. Thanks for watching!
Thanks...I recently sold my R5 (kept my R6) with plans to buy the R3--before the 24MP Sensor was announced. I like the flexibility of the larger sensor so I'm now considering the Nikon Z9 (I own quite a few older Nikkor lenses) or perhaps another R5!
I have had a lot of fun with my R5 and, ultimately, I am glad I bought it. I might look at an R6 as a second camera for traveling and making videos, though. Thanks for watching :)
The resolution difference between the R6 and the R3 is merely 4MP, you should have sold the R6 and kept the R5, therefore you would have had a 45MP, and a 24MP; now you have 2 cameras both with very low resolution, makes no sense
as an R3 owner I can tell you it is NOT suitable for large print. Ive tried blowing up great shots into posters and they all look like crap. I used an R3 $6K camera, Jpeg, and a $6K 300m USM II f2.8 prime lens and doesn't come close to the R5 for large format prints
There are a lot of steps along the way to a great print, so without seeing everything, I can hardly judge your experience. That being said, 24 MP is fine for large prints, I made many from my 5D, 5D 2, he’ll even my 30D. The R5, though, will definitely have an advantage in that arena. Thanks for watching.
I just watched this video and maybe have a correction to this entire video? The Canon Printer you have hits a limit of print quality and this is why your 3 prints are identical. The images are better than the printers capability. Had you enlarged an area of the image, like the tie ... you would then see the reason for higher MP for the sharper detail and color. Then you need to understand why for the last 8 years Commercial photographers have been shooting 40 to 100 MP medium format for Publishing, Wall art and Billboard advertising. And for a Sports photographer that is shooting a high MP number ... it allows that person to crop and zoom to compose a photo for normally 11x14, 8x10 Newsprint or Magazine quality. So for a Photo journalist, the R3 is a tool to be used for a medium sized print or smaller digital media on web, tablet and phone. Sports photographers would like 45 to 50MP so they can give clients Wall Paper sized images in sharp detail and color for Stadiums, Club suits and Athletic Offices at University without doing a digital upscale in pre production. Canon has come out with new printers (PIXMA G5020) that is 4800x1200 to your 2400x1200 on the Pro 2100. I'm sure they're working on a large format printer series to compete and give the details you expect when shooting 40+MP. I'm disappointed in Canon, the pre release video even left out the MP size for a reason ... Sony with the A1 50MP and 30fps is AMAZING.
Although I realize the test was imperfect (not a scientist) the point wasn’t to demonstrate that 45MP looks the same (I didn’t use my R5 in the test) but to show that most photographers absolutely don’t need as many MP as they think they do. If you need more, then buy more. That’s all. I think I actually said that at the end somewhere :) I hear both sides of the argument, and I’m sure the A1 is great, but there are loads of sports and photojournalist photographers that don’t want 120 MB files to contend with in their workflow. Appreciate the feedback, take it easy!
For Wedding and portrait photographers, the high resolution is ideal. Let's you print big or crop for detail. But the journalists don't need or want those pixels. They're on deadline and are uploading photos in near realtime to editors. Different perspective
Good point, for sure. But how much of an image would you have to crop away for a 24 MP image to be no good for a wedding album or print?! You could crop away 2/3 of an image and still print a gorgeous 16x20, I guarantee it :) thanks for watching, Kathy!!
Canon EOS R3 is not focused in photography, If some people are more inclined to printing instead of producing footages, then EOS R3 is a good camera to consider but if they are more on photography and printing, I would suggest they find better alternatives that can outdo this camera. Although 24mp can still be used for printing, I dont find it practical to choose EOS R3 instead of other models.
No question that the R3 has great video capabilities, but it is definitely a dynamite stills camera focused on fast shooting. I think that the people focused on video might find the R5c a good choice
We are all running on the hedonistic treadmill... I don't know anything but have the r6mii, but just itching for the R5mii or the r3 even though I have no need whatsoever lol.. I also have good lenses already, so it would just be retail therapy to get more lol.
There are photographers out there earning a good living with 12 MP cameras, even in 2023, so I think the need for high MP eased somewhat in 2008 when the Nikon D700 was introduced.
Yeah, I think the real test is vs a r5. I would certainly ack that most images these days are consumed so small, you could probably shoot 8mp, and few could tell the difference.
The R3 is the right choice for all high-speed photographers. But honestly, that's why you need such a big body, the Sony A9 can be expanded with a full battery grip, I find this concept better.
Always the cropping argument, cropping will mean you will end up with diffrent resulution images. Better to invest in proper lenses. Ive used 24 mpix sonys since 2015 after my 36 mpix nikon d800. Never missed those pixels…
Bird photographers are the only ones I think seem to have a legitimate reason for more MP, but I still think that it depends on what you plan to do with the image after it’s cropped :)
The 24 is fine. The problem is this pro body “speed camera” still has a sd slot when it clearly can take 2x cf express (same price as sd v90 card now just about) and that Canon will price this thing in the 5-6k category. The camera on its own looks great, against competition that is essentially in the similar price bracket ( taking in lenses cost) it starts to look out of touch. The low light mp arguments, speed to write arguments these are all irrelevant with today’s sensors and cf express cards.
It’s an interesting perspective because I feel like if it was only dual CFE cards that a lot not people would complain. It it’s both then the more pro/speed users complain. Hard to pick who this camera is really for considering the R1 is still to come
Nice video, but your test did NOT include a print taken with a 45mpxl camera. All you did was compare 🍎 to 🍎. You really needed to throw a giant 🍊 into the mix. No doubt that’s where the differences between the cameras you used and the R5 would’ve been obvious. The ire some might be feeling toward Canon for a 24 mpxl sensor on the R3 likely has little to do with image quality at that resolution, but with their expectation for many more mpxls--for all of the reasons many (including me) brought the R5.
I think, in retrospect, where I went wrong with this video was that I made it a comparison at all. I really should have just printed from the SL1, the other cameras confused the issue. In a follow up, comparing the different cameras and adding in the R5 would be cool. My guess is that the final print between the SL1 and the R5 wouldn't be all that different. Again, that might be for another video. Thanks for watching and for your feedback.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Nevertheless, it was still informative. Nice to know it’s possible to print to that image size from a 20-something mpxl camera; larger than I previously thought. Thank you!
Disagree. If he'd taken a 45MP image and put that alongside a 24MP image and then you viewed them from an appropriate viewing distance (9ft; 3x longest edge, my rule of thumb) you wouldn't have been able to tell them apart. A tiny proportion of photographers truly need 45 MP. (MP = Marketing Ploy.)
@@markkeohane9850 And working off the same logic, very few people actually need 30 FPS. Moreover, an additional 21 mpxl (45 vs. 24) would be significantly more noticeable than the extra 10 FPS (30 vs. 20). After all, what can 30 FPS accomplish that 20 cannot? If you can’t do it with 20, you aren’t likely to pull it off with 30. 30 FPS = throwing the dogs a bone after decades of waiting and panting.
Sounds like you might need a longer lens :) but yes, that seems to be the most popular argument for more MP. If you are consistently having trouble getting close enough to your subjects, though, a longer lens or 2x extender might be a great option as well. Thanks!
@@GaryHughesOfficial I have a Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM and RF 100-500mm plus 1.4 Converter for both if needed . No I don’t need a longer lens. ! Small birds nearly always need to be cropped.
Well, I guess you don’t. Can you get closer to the birds then? Is it something you said? Maybe if you apologize they will come closer. Seriously, though, this is the one use-case that keeps coming up. I think it’s valid, partially, depending on what the intended use of the image is. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see an R3s with 50MP in the future. Or maybe that will be the R1. Thanks for your time!
@@GaryHughesOfficial I guess the point is that birders are loving the R5 & 45mp. You ask the question, does it matter that the R3 is only 24mp ?! Ask any bird photographer and most will say yes .. give me more pixels to be able to crop, crop, crop. Now you are saying if you get an R3 then you need a longer lens 🤭
@@ImperialEagle1 not at all. I don't know much about bird photography and it seems to be the one example of photography for which people really want the extra megapixels. In that case, it stands to reason that the R3 was not made with bird photographers in mind. If the R5 is the camera for birders, then so be it. I just keep thinking about how all these bird photographers are planning on using the images, though. Yes it's nice to be able to see all that resolution on our gigantic 4k monitors, but what happens to the image after that? Are the majority of birders posting them to social media? Are they making large prints? Maybe both, but I still argue that, although the extra resolution is nice to have, most photographers, even birders, don't actually need it for their intended use.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Sorry I had to get that off my chest...HAHA! I just shot back to back gigs with the R6 and had to work around it by shooting to an Atamos. The firmware update helped a little bit, but not enough to make any significant improvements.
Didn't you win that camera in a contest? I think shooting to an external recorder seems to be the best solution for anyone doing a ton of heavy lifting.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Let's stay on topic here. It's more of an inconvenience when it shuts off mid-take. Sometimes it even overheats when shooting externally. I really love the R6. It shoots great, has great auto focus, and the lower megapixels never bothered me.
Dude, you have completely missed what the megapixel issue is about. Everyone knows a photo with 18 or whatever mpx will print with very good quality. What people are freaking about is that for sports and wildlife higher res sensors give more reach. The ability to crop into a photo and still maintain 18 or 20 or whatever mpx in the final file. You've completely missed the issue! And honestly I find that just amazing!
Dude! I appreciate your response but I disagree :) the point is: what are you doing with the image after you crop it that you need so many megapixels? If you are cropping away 75% of the image constantly to get closer to a bird then maybe 24 MP isn’t enough. An R5 is a better choice then, right?
@@GaryHughesOfficial That sounds you're agreeing with me. That the people wanted a higher res sensor like an R5 because without it it's usage is limited.
I think if you watch the video, I say at the end that there are different cameras for different uses. I think 24 MP is more than enough for most photographers and perfect for a lot of uses. If the R3 isn’t ideal for you as a bird photographer because of how you crop etc. then that’s cool. Appreciate your time :)
There are two groups of people here: 1. People that have never experienced 45 megapixel images. The 1Dx users etc. These people comment that the 24mpix discussion is ridiculous, the R3 is a great camera and Canon is fantastic. 2. People that have worked with 45 and higher camera’s before. They have no clue why Canon comes up with an 24mpix camera in 2021. There is another interesting discussion going on, I see posts that Canon initially wanted to name this camera (24mpix 30fps) the R1, when all of a sudden Sony launched the A1 (50mpix 30fps). That made Canon go crazy.. what to do? Well, the results are out in the open now: they simply called it the R3 and spin it like it is the ultimate sports and action camera. Wich could be true, in the Canon productline. But launching a pro body with only 24mpix in 2021 is just.... erm, very tipical. I definitely am not going to buy it. I am one of those 1dx series user and I am waiting for AGES for Canon to come up with a high resolution mirrorless pro body with inbuilt batterygrip and weathersealed magnesium alloy. But they simply cannot do it apparently. I have worked with the R5 and was blown away. So why would I invest thousands in half megapixel camera’s? This R3 is outdated the moment you buy it. Come on Canon, step up! Give us a mirrorless pro body with at least 45mpix. NOW!
You forgot the third person. The one who owns a 45MP camera, and even though they LOVE having all that resolution, that it has actually made little difference in their day-to-day professional work. Now this person sees the benefit of a camera that has all of the muscle of a serious action sports camera without the files that can slow down workflow. That person is me, by the way. I shoot a pretty high volume of work, most of which is used online as profile photos and email signatures. This year, since switching to the R5, I have seen a VERY significant increase in the amount of HD and cloud storage space I need while shooting just about the same volume as in previous years. Again, it's a gorgeous camera and I absolutely love it, but it definitely has added time and expense to my business. I can't pretend to know what Canon (or Sony) are thinking, but I can tell you that for every person out there that would love to have those extra pixels, there is a professional photographer that doesn't want them. Thanks for watching and for the feedback.
MP = Marketing Ploy. It's taken many in. No image was ever 'great' because of resolution. Memorable 20th century images: film and rock stars, wars, landscapes; all film - with lenses far less advanced than today's. It's about composition, light, subject, story. 24MP is plenty. Cropping high MP is lazy; wrong glass, standing in the wrong place or lack of shoot planning. Considering viewing distance (rule of thumb, 3x longest image edge) you likely won't differentiate 20MP and 50MP. If it's a captivating image you won't be trying to. Barring pixel-peeping 'togs, no-one eyeballs a print from 3 inches, however large it is. Even billboards only need about 2MP. MP wars is nonsense that adds nothing to the art.
I appreciate the perspective! I was watching videos earlier today and one reviewer suggested that cropping for wildlife when it’s moving, like birds in flight, can benefit from higher MP because it’s beneficial to shoot with a wilder field of view, then crop for the final image. I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it. However I doubt Canon designed this hardware for the specific niche of bird photography. Thanks for watching!
When you take a picture of a bird in flight that is far away you end up cropping. 24 Megapixels is not enough. 50 Megapixels and I would be buying one. Till then my 5D Mark lV will do just fine.
That seems to be the one example I’m hearing. Same question applies though? Even if you crop have the pixels away, what are you doing with the remaining image that needs so many extra pixels? Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment :)
I’m guessing you meant “cropping” right? Lol, happens to me all the time. But I can see your point that sometimes cropping is needed. Even with heavy cropping, 24MP is more than enough for most uses. The vast majority of people share there images online at 2048 pixels or less. That means you can crop away 2/3 of the original image and it will still look great. For any cases where you have to crop a ton and then make a large print, PS and many other software solutions out there upscale using AI and work really well. Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and comment :)
@@GaryHughesOfficial Sorry about the spelling mistake. I'm not saying 24MP is bad in absolut term, but it's bad for he price, bad comparing to competition. The standards moves up, few years ago we are told that 8MP is more than enough, but where we are now? At that price point people are expecting no compromise performance. In sports or wildlife photograpgy (especially small animals like birds), in many case you just can get close enough even with long telephoto lenses, heavy cropping are usually involved, and you lose resolution very, very quickly. I can see the effect on my 24MP Sony camera, but that's just a 1800$ camera and I can live with that. With R3 we are talking about maybe 5000$, that's a different story.
I’m not sure I agree about the price point. One because I don’t know that it’s been announced yet, and second, the other features could very well outweigh the MP as far as value goes. Not completely sure how it’s gonna shake out, but you can be sure I will be talking about it more as more information is released :) appreciate your perspective
Megapixals dont matter. Its the software. I have a 40D 5ti 7DMK2 and 5Dmk2. They all make good 13x19 prints. A super sharp file and pro enlarging software does wonders for big big prints.
Yes indeed, even Photoshop can upscale using AI now. The megapixels do matter in so much as the quality of the sensor and its dynamic range, but the number of them is certainly not even close to the most important.
Interesting perspective. But I think you will find you are wrong about the second thing. Sony released a very successful camera last year with 12MP for around almost $3k, the Canon 1DX3 is only 20. Point being, I think the R3 is aimed at a specific set of photographers. The ones who need or think they need loads more MP are definitely not going to buy it. That being said, I am interested to see what people say about it after it’s released and they get their hands on it. Thanks for watching and for your thoughts
The main argument I’ve heard is for wildlife photographers who like to crop in quite a bit on their images. I’ve had a chance to shoot with the R3 and it’s pretty great
@@GaryHughesOfficial wildlife is an exception and again I would choose a crop sensor which gives me 1.5x crop factor over a FF. I have no clue about Canon models. I am a Nikon shooter and using a 15 year old Nikon D700. I do have a 24mo crop sensor camera too but hardly uses it.
Same sh:t Sony said abt the A7S3. The MP is very important in our day . It’s matter!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder how much canon will pay to promoters so they brain wash consumers instead of putting mor MP .
Interesting that you would make that comparison here because the A7s3 has been one their most popular and critically acclaimed releases. The low MP and high quality sensor make it the perfect solution for certain photographers and video creators. Also, just a side note, although I have presented for Canon in the past, they don’t pay reviewers and they haven’t paid me a dime to talk about this. Putting out a 24MP camera that’s aimed at particular users doesn’t wipe the 45MP R5 out of existence, just get the right camera for you, no need to be upset about it :)
@@superzero4250 all solid cameras, I'm sure. Mainly I hear that video creators like them for the features, price, and affordability. That being said, I don't know a single, serious professional who relies on them. Must still be a m4/3 bias out there when they would be perfectly great for what most people are using them for.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but “everything” is a bit heavy, don’t you think?At the very least they have made some of the best lenses they’ve ever had with the RF lineup. But, no worries, loads of cameras to choose from out there :) best of luck to you!
@@GaryHughesOfficial I am currently a Canon user from 2002-3 .. but sick & tired ok them lately not making one perfect camera,. For photos 5DSr is the best one can get... Better then the mirrorless lineup ,.. but for the videos that's where they start playing so many games they want to sell $30000, $20000, $15000, $10000, $6000, $3000, $1500, cameras so they are killing once camera to sell another 😁.. it's kind of dumb & on other hand we getting all we want in single camera like fujixt4 for hardly $1300 ... And not to mention other camera brands..
I hear you, but I don’t think there is one perfect camera because it depends on what you need as a user. The Xt4 is brilliant, but the ergonomics are awful, the menu system is a mess, and it’s an Aps-c sensor. Any of those things could make it not the perfect camera for some and not bother someone else at all. Canon hasn’t made the perfect camera for you yet, that’s totally fair to say. I’m sure that given some time they will hit the mark for you, but I understand your frustration. Thanks for watching and taking the time to give your feedback.
BURN THE HERETIC!!!!! How dare you suggest I don't need 100mp to shoot email signature headshots and images of my lunch to post on IG. Ok, just kidding. I built my business on the backs of 2 Fuji X-T1's(16mp) after a brief stint using a Rebel T3(12.2mp), and never had an issue with printing. I've had clients print headshots taken with those Fuji's as large as 16x20" for bus stop ads without issue. The resolution actually needed for stuff like that isn't much and those images could have easily been printed larger if need be. How many prints that size or larger are even meant to be viewed up close? I would guess very few.
Oh I understand cropping, to be sure. And if your style of shooting and intended use of the image requires you to crop that much then you probably do need a higher MP camera (I actually think I said that at the end of the video). Thanks for the watch and the feedback. I will continue to learn and grow as a photographer so I can conquer my destiny. I mean density :)
Let me know what you think about the megapixel situation on the R3, I would love to hear your thoughts!
Good with it. Sold my R5 and kept the R6. Hopefully, the R3 will be under 6K. BTW you need the start a Patreon, I'm so in. Thanks again for all the replies to my stupid questions and for helping me out. Thanks, G!
Hey Gary!
You ever heard/used Exposure Blow up3?
@@Rohambili no, is it something that up-rez your images?
@@GaryHughesOfficial
I've never had the opportunity to observe when printing ... But it looks good in photoshop.
If I remember correctly, it somehow creates extra pixels...
10 mp enough for a lot of (HUGE) things, with using blow up.
ua-cam.com/video/rULM3-zXMzM/v-deo.html
This is a great video and perspective... I fully agree... I have printed plenty of images off the nearly 15 year old 5d Mark ii 3x5 feet and it worked great and had it's own characteristics. I currently shoot on the Mark iv and my clients get 2x3 foot prints all the time and it is plenty for that. So for me the megapixels aren't my deciding factor here but rather the auto focus and low light capabilities and pixel quality.
Just found your video and appreciate your take, I am a full time professional and have shot many billboard, editorial and large print images on 22 to 30mp cameras. I started in 1982 and come from a manual focus, non in camera metered, medium format film background as well as 35mm film. It’s about the right camera for you, what the end image will be used for, whether you have a clue what you are doing, etc. With a proven track record at 30mp or less, I don’t need a Sony with 50mp. Many ( not all ) talking about megapixels likely do not need as many as they think they will. If the R3 is not a fit, it’s simple…move on and stop whining.
Thanks for the comment, I agree that lots of photographers think they need more megapixels than they actually do.
When I was making the choice to get the R6, I was coming from a Nikon d800 (36mp) and I was very nervous. After hearing multiple professionals say they could make large prints from a 20mp camera or even lower I was sold. Been shooting with the R6 since. I will be getting the R5 for more cropping freedom but now I won’t worry as much about it. Great video, Gary. Keep up the great work!!
Hey thanks for the feedback (as always!)
I wouldn't call that thing you did a test. It's like testing three electric cars with 200, 250, and 300 miles reach but doing only 100 miles test. Try the canon r6/r5 images, crop 1/4 or 1/8 out of them and then you can compare your prints.
Well that’s not a bad idea, I might just try that. The point, though, is that for the vast majority of photographers out there, quibbling over megapixels is pretty pointless. The “test” I did speaks to that. Thanks for watching
Nobody thinks you can’t crop MORE with higher megapixels…. But the fact is most people who complain about low megapixels have never actually cropped and printed large
I have dropped a Nikon D700, 12.1mpx, to 5 megapixels and then printed 13x19 on my own printer….
Standing an inch away I could MAYBE tell there was something amiss if I knew to look for small variations in pixels
But if you were standing at normal viewing distance…. And especially if you didn’t know it was cropped…. Nobody would be able to tell
I highly recommend this to anyone who thinks 24mpx is “too low”
Remember they used to print billboards and shoot covers of NatGeo and Sports Illustrated with a 12mpx flagship just 10 years ago
But all of a sudden you need 60mpx to do the same, according to “the internet”
Couldn't agree more. It comes down to that most people don't know what a megapixel actually is or how it works. I had a billboard campaign for a client I shot on an 8MP camera. Thanks for the feedback!
@@GaryHughesOfficial and how far away are billboards viewed
from.
People talk about cropping too much...
So what you’re saying is we DON’T have to buy a new camera??
Now hold on a minute
@@GaryHughesOfficial Who are you and what did you do with Gary?!
Oh there will be new cameras!
I've printed 36x24 with a 24mp rebel T7 and they were awesome. Not many walls in normal houses can handle bigger than a 3 foot picture. Also don't forget about the cost of getting a 36x24 file printed. 24 mp is absolutely enough.
I think so too, at least for most photographers. Thanks for watching :)
I was looking for printing topic, and this video brought me to your channel, and I really appreciate the way you explain these concepts, Gary. Now you have a new subscriber here. I'm gonna check all your videos since I'm passionate about photography. Thank you!
Well thanks for checking it out, welcome to the channel?
What about the limitations of the printer ? Most can only manage 300 dots per inch. on A3 size paper that needs only 14.4 MP..
Right, that's a good point. People are a little to focused on MPs I think without understanding what it really means.
Excellent timing Gary! I have been stewing over the Canon R5 and R6 because of the vast difference in megapixels between them. I think you just saved me some money! Thanks!
Always happy to be of service :) The R5 and R6 are both fantastic cameras, no question. Good luck!
The difference is nil if you are just using them as FX cameras. The difference is huge if you want to switch them to DX crop mode. I bought the R6 and sold it for the R5 because in crop mode, for extended reach, the R5 is still an 18mp camera. Now you should see the light. Yes, the R5 is two cameras in one. That is where you save money. After using 4 camera bodies for most of my career (Nature and Wildlife), I now use just 1. Do more research before you buy.
Awesome video once again Gary! My original R is doing me just fine and I plan on using it for years to come regardless of the newer versions that come along.
It’s a fine camera, for sure. Thanks for checking in, my friend!
The Canon EOS R is a great camera. With that camera, you can print pictures at a resolution of 20 X 30 at greater than 200 DPI with no upscaling.
@@FinalLugiaGuardian good to know!
Great review! I’ve made a lot of prints for my clients at 44” on my Canon Imageprograf 4000. All from a 1Dx2 with ‘only’ 20mp. I’ve never had a costumer complaining about a lag of sharpness… if you have a high quality file the mp’s most of the time don’t matter. So I was very pleased to see your video about the high mp myth …
I appreciate the feedback, thanks for watching
On the Canon 4000, was that using the canon standard software or a fancy aftermarket RIP? I started printing big in-house back around 2005? when the Epson 9800 was their newest large format but I had it custom set up with a Studioprint RIP which allowed larger printing at much higher quality. This was a lot more important back when a 1Ds was only Mp in the teens and the sensors were not as advanced as they are now.
Great video! It’s really great to see someone talking about actual printed image quality instead of just pixel peeping! In the case of the m50, and you touched on this a bit, Canon’s aps-c sensors are small. 2.6x (surface area) smaller than their full frame sensors. This means that if you were to extrapolate the size of the photosites on an m50 to full frame, you have roughly a 62mpx sensor. Not that this really matters, but it does kinda put the idea of better image quality from larger photosites to rest. Great video! For me high res is really about the crop ability. If you don’t need to crop your images, (or print VERY large) than 24 mpx is more than enough!
Good feedback, thank you for watching
Gary, you are not an idiot fortunately, but there is a single point I would make. As mainly a event and wedding photographer sometimes I need to crop big as I see composition in post I may not have seen when I am shooting documentary style. That’s for me the reason I have an R5 and RF lenses as they are so sharp and stand up to the occasional heavy crop. This versatility is the only reason that 24MP is not enough for me. It’s a safety blanket if you will. If you are a portrait photographer you should be filling the frame most of the time but if you do some sports or wildlife then cropping is going to be part of you workflow as it is mine.
Okay that’s fair, but here’s the next question. As a wedding and event photographer, how are those cropped images used? Online? Prints? Albums? Even if you have to crop half the image away, that’s still a huge file. Is it a corporate event? They use those on social media? A reception shot? Well that might be as big as 8x10 in an album. My point isn’t that you, personally don’t need 45MP, it’s just that if most photographers really sit and think about the end use of the file, cropped or no, the number of MP isn’t always relevant. Thanks for watching and for your feedback :)
Nice video, Gary! Thank you for doing this test. I think it’s a very good topic because beginner photographers always worry about the MP. I shoot Nikon at 45 megapixel, but always end up resizing to lower resolution. You should do more videos on UA-cam btw 😜
Thanks, Yulia, I want to make more :) running the studio and raising three girls takes up a ton of time at the moment, but I’m working on it. Thanks for watching!
@@GaryHughesOfficial I have one little boy and a mom to watch him and I still can’t manage, so I don’t know how you do it then :) but I love watching your videos and you as a speaker. You made us all laugh at WPPI with your funny humor :)
Thanks for being there, I’ll keep the content coming :)
Thanks for taking the time with this but the only way to do the test is compare different resolution cameras and look at the large print (60 inch) differences.
Well Barrie, we are gonna disagree there. The point here was to print large (larger than most photographers would print) and to show that 18MP is more than up to the job for large prints. Now, what I could have done differently was to eliminate the other two cameras and just show what 18 MP can do, then in another video, compare 18 and 45 MP in a large print. Live and learn, I guess. The moral of the story is that very few people who complain about the number of MP in a camera actually understand what they are complaining about. Having a ton of MP is sexy (I own the R5) but unnecessary for most shooters. Thanks for watching and for your thoughts, maybe I will put together a comparison with the R5 next :)
Hi
I want advice from you. I have been shooting for a year and a half and I have a Canon 5d IV and I was thinking of buying a Canon R5 for me. Should I stay with the 5D and improve myself and learn how to see the camera? What will help me and take the new one?
The 5D4 is an incredible camera and will be some for many years. Those 5 series cameras just keep on going. I don’t think that a mirrorless camera will make your photography any better, but sometimes new equipment does inspire us to create. You just have to find a balance there :) thanks for watching.
Thank you
Depends what you shoot. Mirrorless is a different experience, providing new capabilities; seeing exposure in real-time as you adjust settings; not having to go to Liveview (or whatever Canon's equivalent is) on the LCD and suffering slower, less accurate contrast-detect AF if you want to shoot without using the viewfinder; having much better AF capability, including face- and eye-detect; being able to shoot remotely using your smartphone (with Nikon, anyway). If those things are of value to you then a move to mirrorless could be worth it. On the flip side, you'll need more batteries... But I'm sure the 5D IV is a great tool to develop your skills. (I shoot Nikon, as you probably gathered.)
Videos like this help me, because choosing a new camera gets real complicated real fast, especially if you're on a limited budget. Camera features, like the size of the sensor and autofocus capability, play a big part, but then you have to think about the lenses too. For someone like me the Canon R3 would be a huge investment. Instead of spending $6000 on a body, maybe I'd get better results buying a cheaper body like an RP or R7 and then spending $4000 to $5000 on good lenses.
It might be easier to just marry a photographer that already has some nice gear. :)
My experience is that I get a new body every couple of years while lenses last ten years or more (at least). The RP and the R7 (I own both) are very capable cameras.
Great video Gary. As you know, it's easy to get caught up in the MP race. I currently am shooting sports and using an R5. The great thing about having the higher MPs is the cropping ability. With many events the distance your shooting from is such that cropping is a much better option than buying a 400mm 2.8 lens.
Yes, totally get that. But how much do you crop away typically? What do you do with the images afterward? Is the extra resolution needed for the final usage? Maybe so, but I think if most photographers asked themself if they really needed it, they might find they don’t. Thank you for watching!
That’s incorrect, cropping it’s not a better option. It’s always better to have the proper focal length glass, the images will always resolve better.
@@FishinMagik yes, in as perfect world that's always better. Not everyone has the glass to do that, though. I agree with you but I see the other point of view as well. Thanks for your feedback!
I'm new to printing and I'm trying to understand how I should translate my images to the printer when I send to a studio.
They ask for 270-300ppi, but if I do that with a 24MP sensor I could only get 14.8 x 22 inches (270 ppi).
So how do you make such big prints?
I'm genuinely trying to learn how to prepare a file for printing big.
I’m not expert, just an advanced amateur when it comes to printing, but my process is this: I edit my raw file, convert it to a 16 bit TIFF file, open and edit in PS, save as TIFF, and print directly from the TIFF file using Canon Print and Layout software. I don’t resize up or down. All the while working and Adobe 1998 color space. For a lab, for most prints they will handle the sizing up or down for you as long as you send them a full resolution jpeg. Make a note that they usually work in SRGB as that’s what most photographers tend to work in by default (and most of them don’t understand color space to begin with).
@@GaryHughesOfficial
Ok.
I'm taking notes on this.
I don't have the means to buy a printer, so I should still export a jpg at the right size or let the lab resize it?
Or send a TIFF to the lab?
Jpegs will probably do just fine. The lab has software that resizes for you so send full size jpegs :)
Shooting some boxes and a faceless mannequin probably doesn't result in images full of the details one would hope to capture with a high-megapixel sensor. Probably not a good test, right from the get go. What do you think?
Have another look, there was loads of texture, color, and detail in the scene. Now, if it was a close up of just a mannequin on a white wall, I’d agree with you. I’ll keep it in mind, though, when I put together any similar tests. If you like, I can send you one of the prints :) Thanks for watching and for your feedback.
Why do you need the detail?
Great video bud! I was worried about a 30 megapixel large print of Moraine Lake. I printed it 4 ft by 3 ft and when I received the print I was so happy how it turned out. I would have gone larger but hind sight is 20/20!
Absolutely, I think that the vast majority of people, especially the people who the R3 is meant for, are going to do just fine with 24MP. I would even bet that a lot of them don't want more MP.
I like the R5 for its 45 mp so that I can crop and print. I shoot bird/wildlife and you can hardly get close to the subject. For wedding, portrait, products, etc, you are close to your subject and you don't need to crop much.
Certainly that’s a good point. Depends on what lenses you have access to and what you’re shooting. If you need to make extreme crops and make large prints, 45MP might be a good choice.
Which is why Canon said this is for professional sports/journalism. They specifically excluded wildlife. This is a niche camera. This isn't for film makers, wildlife, wedding, portrait, etc.
@@iKeto_gal I did see in the official announcement that the left out wildlife photographers. Definitely seems like a niche camera that is testing out some really cool new tech that we will get versions of in other cameras moving forward.
Excellent points!
Thanks!
4k ultra HDTV is 3,840x2,160 = 8,294,400, a little under 8 megapixels. It can look good on a large-screen TV. Are these the same kind of pixels?
Pretty much. A 24 megapixel camera would take pictures MUCH larger than a 4k TV would need :)
@@GaryHughesOfficial, Thanks. But then it confuses me that 4k ultra HDTV looks so sharp on such a large screen. I would have thought that an 8k photo would not look that good at that size.
@@factChecker01 well you have a lot to unpack there, but you are talking about the native resolution of the screen. I am hardly the expert on this particular subject, but I bet there are loads of YT videos on the subject.
@@GaryHughesOfficial, Thanks. The reason I asked is that my normal way to view my photos is on a HDTV screen. (I gave up on large-format transparencies) It surprised me when I realized that the 1080p HDTV resolution was so crude (1,920*1,080=2,073,600)
Am a wedding/head shot photographer here in Uganda and i use a nikon d700. i have been printing 59.4 x 84.1cm and they really look amazing. thanks Gary
That’s awesome to hear!
I have a D700. It's a classic and I'm not remotely surprised that you can print that size. I also have a Z6 but I'll happily still pull the D700 out at any shoot. My rule of thumb is that viewing distance for normal folks would be about 3x the print's longest edge; in your case, about 2 1/2m. I'm sure they look great at that distance and 'only' having 12MP is irrelevant. A good image is a good image; well-composed, well-lit, well-posed, technically solid, shot with the appropriate glass. Those are the things that matter.
High end Canon sensors in my opinion have a certain look about them, i had 1D MK iii's 10.1 MP and the quality was stunning for the MP. Not sure how this all translates to printed images but clearly from your tests most of these sensors are capable of producing nice large prints. Now the R1 is going to be 24 MP so i understand this kind of proves that you don't need much more unless your cropping heavily, and to me noise is always better controlled in these sensors.
True enough, thanks for watching
Thanks for awesome video which reaffirms the lesson, it's the quality of the MP, more than the quantity. My only complaint is you're not a Lumix Ambassador as I shoot with Panasonic gear. 🙂
Lol, I hear they make a fine camera :) been Canon my entire career (as you can see by all the cameras I own)
Great video and I fully agree in principle. The only advantage of more megapixel is the possibility to cary fewer lenses. I have the R5 and with a couple of RF lenses. Just carrying the R5 with the 70-200 with me on the longer end would substitute a 100-400 because of the outstanding optical quality of the lens and the possibility to crop. But I am still considering to purchase the R3 and sell my R5 since I also have the 100-500 and I do not like the file size of the R5. I also would prefer a better high ISO quality of the pics and I hope the R3 will deliver that.
That's a solid point, for sure. The R5 files are a bit chunky, no doubt.
I am interested in purchasing an R5. I saw a few videos and complaints about the hot shoe on the R5/R6 getting loose in less than a year. Has anyone heard of this issue? Does the R3 have this problem?
I have the Rp, the R5, and the R7, no issues with the hot shoe.
Exactly Garry! I noticed that my old 7D at 18 mp did a fantastic job. I bought a second hand 7D mark ii for wild life after have the 80D for a year and a half. Plenty of resolution for my needs. The megapixel craving is somewhat of a deep well. The more you have, the more you want.
Great point!
I personally disagree. Having owned the 5Ds for most of its life since the day it arrived in the market, 50 mpxls has been optimal for me. Moving to 60 mxpls (Sony) has no appeal to me. What I get a little tired of hearing about are the “issues with larger file sizes. I use an Asus gaming computer; it has always had enough computing power for such files. Of course, all storage is done with external hard-drives. But these aren’t too expensive now either. A 1 TB SSD IS ~$179.00. Hardly a cost-prohibitive purchase given what we’ve paid for an R5 and L-series lenses.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Truth be told, prior to buying the R5, I shot with 5DM3 and 5Ds in every photoshoot. Every so often I’d look at the images in LR and have to double check to see which camera an image was shot with. All else being equal, I want the extra mpxls. But that is simply MY preference.
Sure thing. There is no question as to whether or not a photographer would like more MP (all things being equal). The question is, do most photographers NEED it for their work? I think for the vast majority of photographers, the answer is no. Whether or not you view the additional time and expense of larger files as important to you, well that’s up for you to decide. Thanks for the feedback.
Hi, I shoot birds and wildlife, I currently have a 30 megapixel 5D mk4 and canon 600mm F4 mk2 with 2x extender, that's 1200mm at f8 and I still need to crop. I'm sad that the R3 is only 24mp,, it should have been at least 30mp. Also 30fps with electronic shutter and possible distortion ? I'd stick to the 12fps mechanical shutter. Think my next camera will have to be the R5 with battery grip... Canon missed the mark again.
This is definitely the use case that I have heard about the most for high MP. As I am looking at the manual, press releases, and marketing materials, it is very clear that the R3 was not designed with bird photographers in mind. And you know what, that’s okay. I think the R5 seems to be the best choice for that use case considering price/features. If and when there is an R1 and it’s 50 MP but $8k, would you buy that? I will be interested to see if they don’t come out with an R3s that has a higher resolution sensor.
@@GaryHughesOfficial thanks for the reply, nice channel and very professionally done. I'm loaning an R5 soon but I had a play with one and without the battery grip it feels like a toy, the R3 is a much better feeling package, I had a play with a pre release version a few days ago. I have a feeling the R1 will be a more robust version of the R3 with not a huge megapixel sensor. If 30+ megapixels is too large in file size, there could have been in camera options for smaller sizes. The R3 could have been the ultimate wildlife/birding Canon camera so far.
I do miss the adjustable sizes of RAW you used to get from Canon. Came in very handy for volume work. I think many of us are interested to see what the R1 will look like.
Excellent presentation 👏🏾 👌🏿 👍🏽
Thanks very much!
I feel like the pictures you had taken also do not require much resolution to make them look good as well. Meaning the toy, the manikin with the ties.... Not really a whole lot going on there. What about a mountain with trees and snow in areas along with a sunset? That is much more detail to capture and would likely show in this test. Also, there really isn't a large difference in megapixels here, try the 18mp against a 33mp or a 33mp against a 61mp. And try a taking a photo that matters then tell me the difference.
Well I appreciate that it wasn’t a perfect, scientific experiment in the truest sense, just an illustration. The fact remains: most photographers aren’t doing anything with their images that warrants 60MP. Those that are, will likely choose a camera that is not the R3 :) I think I actually said that landscape photographers might prefer the R5 in the conclusion of the video ;) thanks for watching
There are a few good arguments in favor of more megapixels. For instance: cropping in wildlife photography. Frequently you can't get close to wildlife, even with a huge lens, so you end up cropping. Having those extra MP means you're not going to lose detail in the feathers or in the eye.
Also, there are people that can see the detail loss when printing larger prints with fewer MP. They are few and far between, but it would be just my luck to get an eagle-eyed client.
That said, I've printed at 24x36 with a 22 MP sensor on a 5D Mark III and it looked just fine.
I definitely get the argument for wildlife, but I also think that argument won’t stand up for too much longer. PS can already quadruple the size of a RAW file with AI. As that technology develops even more, digital upscaling could make resolution mostly obsolete. Thanks for watching and for your feedback
I make 74x36 prints on a number of occasions and had a request for a 107x70 that I didn't feel confident. I am one of those people that see the detail loss and met a couple others that notice it right off the bat too. I would have prefered to see the comparison on an actual larger format picture.
@@Darqueprophet Tony Northrup did that experiment, though he didn't make increasingly larger prints which would've been cost prohibitive. Instead, he cropped down. The results were fairly conclusive: more megapixels is better in larger prints. Some people could definitely see it. Gary is saying that AI is getting better at upscaling the photos but I'm ready to take the Pepsi Challenge on that tactic. I'm not saying he's wrong but I will go out on a limb and say it probably works better on less complex subjects.
@@Darqueprophet I wish I had a larger printer too, lol. I will have more similar content coming forward and will come up with some more scientific testing to make the point I want to make. Thanks for watching!
AMEN brother! All these MP nonsense is getting ridiculous. There only a few specific applications where one might actually (need) a lot of MP, specially for cropping, and that's about it. The camera industry is brainwashing a lot of people making them think they "need" a high MP.
Certainly some people could legitimately use the extra MP, but most people it’s much more of a want than a need. Thanks for watching!
This color grade 😍
You think? I tried something new :)
Great video
Thank!
Yip. Hear what you saying. The R5 for landscape, wildlife and the outdoors when the lighting is not always ideal.
That's fair.
VERY Compelling! I'm a sad bigger is better old man. I was struggling over the 24 MP sensor...... Now I need to look at what all the other features of this offering.
I am a recently converted, former “bigger is better guy”. I am very interested to see this 24MP sensor on the R3 as it will be totally new. The potential for quality with the new technology is pretty great. A very high-quality, full-frame 24MP sensor has a lot of exciting possibilities. We shall see.
I really like your videos bro! totally agree.
Alright, we’ll thanks for watching!
Well said. 🔥
Thanks!
Why don't the pillows in the background say Live Laugh Love? I could have sworn something was written on them...
Actually one of them says "Grateful and Blessed"
The benefit of higher megapixel is when cropping is required in fast action shots such as birds in flight. A major crop on a 24 megapixel you could end up with 12 or 8 megapixel print.
That’s true, certainly. But even a 12 or 8 MP file can enlarge beautifully. Not to mention, that really only matters if you plan to make very large prints (which most don’t) Even then, PS can quadruple the size of a raw file pretty flawlessly with its AI now. So, yes you’re right, but it’s not a strictly a huge problem except for what I would guess is a small subset of photographers. Thanks for watching and for your feedback :)
If you’re cropping to that extent then there’s probably something wrong with you wildlife technique. Also cropping by that much brings in problems such as any lens issues such as softness, off focusing, camera shake, then there’s atmospheric conditions. Go on any social media and you can tell the images that have been cropped by any large amount to the kind you’re suggesting. If you don’t have a high quality lens capable of resolving those megapixels, then you’re basically throwing away much of them.
I wonder why you did not compare it with the R5, as you said you own one.
In retrospect, I probably should have. Maybe in another video? I have been doing nothing but thinking about follow ups to this since I posted it :) thanks for watching!
How could he? He does not have an R3 🤣
24 megapixels means you can print 20x30 inch prints at 200 dpi with no upscaling. Factor in "smart" upscaling computer programs combined with shooting in 14 bit RAW and you maybe can get the effect of 250dpi when printing at 20x30.
Good point! And PS can quadruple the size of a RAW file with its latest AI if you need to go bigger :)
Let’s be honest. The quality of these newer camera sensor are amazing. 24 MP is fine. Even for print. I print large files from my drone shots, 20 MP. Pictures look fine.
Good point
Even for seasoned amateurs going for a higher resolution camera isn’t entirely illogical, here’s why: Not all subjects are suited to the rectangle format print, some subjects are only suitable to be photographed in the square format, if you used a 24MP camera to photograph in the square format, the print would be too small at 16”x16” max; but if you use a 45MP camera you could photograph your subject using the 1:1 square aspect ratio which will give you 36”x36” square prints. Prior to the advent of digital photography, even seasoned amateurs used 6x6 Medium-Format cameras which gave them square images. Thus high resolution cameras have advantages even for amateurs.
That's an interesting way to look at it. I guess the point here was exactly that: what's the use case. The R3 doesn't seem to be the ideas for people who need/think they need all those pixels, but my main question was: How are the images going to be used after you crop them? If you are cropping square, but all the images are 1024 pixel e-commerce photos, then the extra pixels aren't as important as they would be for someone who shoots for large print campaigns and needs to leave a lot of room for cropping in the design afterward. Thanks for watching!
Thanks...I recently sold my R5 (kept my R6) with plans to buy the R3--before the 24MP Sensor was announced. I like the flexibility of the larger sensor so I'm now considering the Nikon Z9 (I own quite a few older Nikkor lenses) or perhaps another R5!
I have had a lot of fun with my R5 and, ultimately, I am glad I bought it. I might look at an R6 as a second camera for traveling and making videos, though. Thanks for watching :)
The resolution difference between the R6 and the R3 is merely 4MP, you should have sold the R6 and kept the R5, therefore you would have had a 45MP, and a 24MP; now you have 2 cameras both with very low resolution, makes no sense
I've printed posters from my Canon T3i back in 2014 and they looked fantastic, and that was 18mp.
Yes indeed!
Great video. … a lot of camera jargon….canon should make you an ambassador.
You know, not a bad idea!
as an R3 owner I can tell you it is NOT suitable for large print. Ive tried blowing up great shots into posters and they all look like crap.
I used an R3 $6K camera, Jpeg, and a $6K 300m USM II f2.8 prime lens and doesn't come close to the R5 for large format prints
There are a lot of steps along the way to a great print, so without seeing everything, I can hardly judge your experience. That being said, 24 MP is fine for large prints, I made many from my 5D, 5D 2, he’ll even my 30D. The R5, though, will definitely have an advantage in that arena. Thanks for watching.
I just watched this video and maybe have a correction to this entire video?
The Canon Printer you have hits a limit of print quality and this is why your 3 prints are identical. The images are better than the printers capability. Had you enlarged an area of the image, like the tie ... you would then see the reason for higher MP for the sharper detail and color.
Then you need to understand why for the last 8 years Commercial photographers have been shooting 40 to 100 MP medium format for Publishing, Wall art and Billboard advertising. And for a Sports photographer that is shooting a high MP number ... it allows that person to crop and zoom to compose a photo for normally 11x14, 8x10 Newsprint or Magazine quality.
So for a Photo journalist, the R3 is a tool to be used for a medium sized print or smaller digital media on web, tablet and phone.
Sports photographers would like 45 to 50MP so they can give clients Wall Paper sized images in sharp detail and color for Stadiums, Club suits and Athletic Offices at University without doing a digital upscale in pre production.
Canon has come out with new printers (PIXMA G5020) that is 4800x1200 to your 2400x1200 on the Pro 2100. I'm sure they're working on a large format printer series to compete and give the details you expect when shooting 40+MP.
I'm disappointed in Canon, the pre release video even left out the MP size for a reason ... Sony with the A1 50MP and 30fps is AMAZING.
Although I realize the test was imperfect (not a scientist) the point wasn’t to demonstrate that 45MP looks the same (I didn’t use my R5 in the test) but to show that most photographers absolutely don’t need as many MP as they think they do. If you need more, then buy more. That’s all. I think I actually said that at the end somewhere :) I hear both sides of the argument, and I’m sure the A1 is great, but there are loads of sports and photojournalist photographers that don’t want 120 MB files to contend with in their workflow. Appreciate the feedback, take it easy!
Yes it is
Excellent
да, есть дифракция света и слишком увеличение разрешения при том же размере матрицы не приводит к большому росту качества
Отличный момент! Спасибо, что посмотрели видео и поделились своим мнением :)
for printing, 5mb file is more than enough. i don't think its all about megapixels
Agreed, more to it than just Mp
For Wedding and portrait photographers, the high resolution is ideal. Let's you print big or crop for detail. But the journalists don't need or want those pixels. They're on deadline and are uploading photos in near realtime to editors. Different perspective
Good point, for sure. But how much of an image would you have to crop away for a 24 MP image to be no good for a wedding album or print?! You could crop away 2/3 of an image and still print a gorgeous 16x20, I guarantee it :) thanks for watching, Kathy!!
I hope you're not cropping that excessively for weddings and portraits.
the only advantage is see in pixel counts is cropping and zooming...
That’s a good point - for some that’s a big deal
Canon EOS R3 is not focused in photography, If some people are more inclined to printing instead of producing footages, then EOS R3 is a good camera to consider but if they are more on photography and printing, I would suggest they find better alternatives that can outdo this camera. Although 24mp can still be used for printing, I dont find it practical to choose EOS R3 instead of other models.
No question that the R3 has great video capabilities, but it is definitely a dynamite stills camera focused on fast shooting. I think that the people focused on video might find the R5c a good choice
We are all running on the hedonistic treadmill... I don't know anything but have the r6mii, but just itching for the R5mii or the r3 even though I have no need whatsoever lol.. I also have good lenses already, so it would just be retail therapy to get more lol.
Retail therapy is right! I am sure that if I were more focused on video therapy R5ii would be a very worthy upgrade
There are photographers out there earning a good living with 12 MP cameras, even in 2023, so I think the need for high MP eased somewhat in 2008 when the Nikon D700 was introduced.
Agree!
Yeah, I think the real test is vs a r5. I would certainly ack that most images these days are consumed so small, you could probably shoot 8mp, and few could tell the difference.
great point, more videos on this topic already rattling around my brain
The R3 is the right choice for all high-speed photographers. But honestly, that's why you need such a big body, the Sony A9 can be expanded with a full battery grip, I find this concept better.
Do you think that the 45 MP version of a camera like this would be a negative for a lot of shooters?
30mp is the sweet spot
As I understand it that’s about the best number for a full frame sensor
They use to do billboards with 8mp. 24 is more than enough
Certainly :)
larger pixels mean not only bigger print but also more ability when edit pictures especially "crop".
Yes, certainly true. But how many photographers are printing that big? Not many I’d wager. Thanks for watching and for the feedback :)
Don’t sweat the megapixel
Sounds like a tee shirt idea
Great video thanks
Agreed
Lol, yes it does!
As for the R3 I WANT ONE
Since I’ve made this, I’ve had the chance to use one. It’s a great camera
Always the cropping argument, cropping will mean you will end up with diffrent resulution images. Better to invest in proper lenses. Ive used 24 mpix sonys since 2015 after my 36 mpix nikon d800. Never missed those pixels…
Bird photographers are the only ones I think seem to have a legitimate reason for more MP, but I still think that it depends on what you plan to do with the image after it’s cropped :)
The 24 is fine. The problem is this pro body “speed camera” still has a sd slot when it clearly can take 2x cf express (same price as sd v90 card now just about) and that Canon will price this thing in the 5-6k category. The camera on its own looks great, against competition that is essentially in the similar price bracket ( taking in lenses cost) it starts to look out of touch. The low light mp arguments, speed to write arguments these are all irrelevant with today’s sensors and cf express cards.
It’s an interesting perspective because I feel like if it was only dual CFE cards that a lot not people would complain. It it’s both then the more pro/speed users complain. Hard to pick who this camera is really for considering the R1 is still to come
I suppose the reality is, it's mainly a photo camera and an SD card is more than enough to use 30 fps on.
Yes, great video capabilities, but primarily a stills camera
I have made the same experience.
Thanks for watching
Never forget the LENS
I forgot my lens once…
I shoot with a Canon EOS 1D 8 megapixels and create big beautiful prints....
That’s great!
Nice video, but your test did NOT include a print taken with a 45mpxl camera. All you did was compare 🍎 to 🍎. You really needed to throw a giant 🍊 into the mix. No doubt that’s where the differences between the cameras you used and the R5 would’ve been obvious. The ire some might be feeling toward Canon for a 24 mpxl sensor on the R3 likely has little to do with image quality at that resolution, but with their expectation for many more mpxls--for all of the reasons many (including me) brought the R5.
I think, in retrospect, where I went wrong with this video was that I made it a comparison at all. I really should have just printed from the SL1, the other cameras confused the issue. In a follow up, comparing the different cameras and adding in the R5 would be cool. My guess is that the final print between the SL1 and the R5 wouldn't be all that different. Again, that might be for another video. Thanks for watching and for your feedback.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Nevertheless, it was still informative. Nice to know it’s possible to print to that image size from a 20-something mpxl camera; larger than I previously thought. Thank you!
No problem :)
Disagree. If he'd taken a 45MP image and put that alongside a 24MP image and then you viewed them from an appropriate viewing distance (9ft; 3x longest edge, my rule of thumb) you wouldn't have been able to tell them apart. A tiny proportion of photographers truly need 45 MP. (MP = Marketing Ploy.)
@@markkeohane9850 And working off the same logic, very few people actually need 30 FPS. Moreover, an additional 21 mpxl (45 vs. 24) would be significantly more noticeable than the extra 10 FPS (30 vs. 20). After all, what can 30 FPS accomplish that 20 cannot? If you can’t do it with 20, you aren’t likely to pull it off with 30.
30 FPS = throwing the dogs a bone after decades of waiting and panting.
Bird photographer - tiny distant bird .. crop, crop, crop .. voila ! with R5.
Tiny distant bird with R3 - 24 megapixels ? Hmm, hope it can handle all my cropping !
Sounds like you might need a longer lens :) but yes, that seems to be the most popular argument for more MP. If you are consistently having trouble getting close enough to your subjects, though, a longer lens or 2x extender might be a great option as well. Thanks!
@@GaryHughesOfficial I have a Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM and RF 100-500mm plus 1.4 Converter for both if needed .
No I don’t need a longer lens. !
Small birds nearly always need to be cropped.
Well, I guess you don’t. Can you get closer to the birds then? Is it something you said? Maybe if you apologize they will come closer. Seriously, though, this is the one use-case that keeps coming up. I think it’s valid, partially, depending on what the intended use of the image is. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see an R3s with 50MP in the future. Or maybe that will be the R1. Thanks for your time!
@@GaryHughesOfficial I guess the point is that birders are loving the R5 & 45mp.
You ask the question, does it matter that the R3 is only 24mp ?!
Ask any bird photographer and most will say yes .. give me more pixels to be able to crop, crop, crop.
Now you are saying if you get an R3 then you need a longer lens 🤭
@@ImperialEagle1 not at all. I don't know much about bird photography and it seems to be the one example of photography for which people really want the extra megapixels. In that case, it stands to reason that the R3 was not made with bird photographers in mind. If the R5 is the camera for birders, then so be it. I just keep thinking about how all these bird photographers are planning on using the images, though. Yes it's nice to be able to see all that resolution on our gigantic 4k monitors, but what happens to the image after that? Are the majority of birders posting them to social media? Are they making large prints? Maybe both, but I still argue that, although the extra resolution is nice to have, most photographers, even birders, don't actually need it for their intended use.
Yo random question, what do you put in your hair? 😂 i need it!
It’s not the product as much as the technique :) the secret is
Can we take the Funko Pops out of the box and make a stop motion movie? Side note - I think you need a bigger printer.
YOU CAN'T TAKE THEM OUT OF THE BOX!! ARE YOU NUTS!? Also, I could go bigger
Megapixels don't matter when the camera (R6) keeps overheating when you record in 4K 60. I wish Canon would fix that...maybe one day.
Feel better now? I hear the latest firmware improves the issue somewhat :) no word on overheating for the R3
@@GaryHughesOfficial Sorry I had to get that off my chest...HAHA! I just shot back to back gigs with the R6 and had to work around it by shooting to an Atamos. The firmware update helped a little bit, but not enough to make any significant improvements.
Didn't you win that camera in a contest? I think shooting to an external recorder seems to be the best solution for anyone doing a ton of heavy lifting.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Let's stay on topic here. It's more of an inconvenience when it shuts off mid-take. Sometimes it even overheats when shooting externally. I really love the R6. It shoots great, has great auto focus, and the lower megapixels never bothered me.
Yes No doubt it’s frustrating. Just buy a second one and you can switch between them.
Dude, you have completely missed what the megapixel issue is about. Everyone knows a photo with 18 or whatever mpx will print with very good quality. What people are freaking about is that for sports and wildlife higher res sensors give more reach. The ability to crop into a photo and still maintain 18 or 20 or whatever mpx in the final file. You've completely missed the issue! And honestly I find that just amazing!
Dude! I appreciate your response but I disagree :) the point is: what are you doing with the image after you crop it that you need so many megapixels? If you are cropping away 75% of the image constantly to get closer to a bird then maybe 24 MP isn’t enough. An R5 is a better choice then, right?
@@GaryHughesOfficial That sounds you're agreeing with me. That the people wanted a higher res sensor like an R5 because without it it's usage is limited.
I think if you watch the video, I say at the end that there are different cameras for different uses. I think 24 MP is more than enough for most photographers and perfect for a lot of uses. If the R3 isn’t ideal for you as a bird photographer because of how you crop etc. then that’s cool. Appreciate your time :)
@@GaryHughesOfficial Yes I'll admit I didn't watch the last couple of minutes so sorry if that's created an issue.
No worries
There are two groups of people here:
1. People that have never experienced 45 megapixel images. The 1Dx users etc.
These people comment that the 24mpix discussion is ridiculous, the R3 is a great camera and Canon is fantastic.
2. People that have worked with 45 and higher camera’s before. They have no clue why Canon comes up with an 24mpix camera in 2021.
There is another interesting discussion going on, I see posts that Canon initially wanted to name this camera (24mpix 30fps) the R1, when all of a sudden Sony launched the A1 (50mpix 30fps). That made Canon go crazy.. what to do? Well, the results are out in the open now: they simply called it the R3 and spin it like it is the ultimate sports and action camera. Wich could be true, in the Canon productline. But launching a pro body with only 24mpix in 2021 is just.... erm, very tipical. I definitely am not going to buy it.
I am one of those 1dx series user and I am waiting for AGES for Canon to come up with a high resolution mirrorless pro body with inbuilt batterygrip and weathersealed magnesium alloy. But they simply cannot do it apparently. I have worked with the R5 and was blown away. So why would I invest thousands in half megapixel camera’s?
This R3 is outdated the moment you buy it.
Come on Canon, step up! Give us a mirrorless pro body with at least 45mpix. NOW!
You forgot the third person. The one who owns a 45MP camera, and even though they LOVE having all that resolution, that it has actually made little difference in their day-to-day professional work. Now this person sees the benefit of a camera that has all of the muscle of a serious action sports camera without the files that can slow down workflow. That person is me, by the way. I shoot a pretty high volume of work, most of which is used online as profile photos and email signatures. This year, since switching to the R5, I have seen a VERY significant increase in the amount of HD and cloud storage space I need while shooting just about the same volume as in previous years. Again, it's a gorgeous camera and I absolutely love it, but it definitely has added time and expense to my business. I can't pretend to know what Canon (or Sony) are thinking, but I can tell you that for every person out there that would love to have those extra pixels, there is a professional photographer that doesn't want them. Thanks for watching and for the feedback.
@@GaryHughesOfficial That "third person" is, I'm quite sure, a lot of us!
@@crennie6928 i think so too.
MP = Marketing Ploy. It's taken many in. No image was ever 'great' because of resolution. Memorable 20th century images: film and rock stars, wars, landscapes; all film - with lenses far less advanced than today's. It's about composition, light, subject, story. 24MP is plenty. Cropping high MP is lazy; wrong glass, standing in the wrong place or lack of shoot planning. Considering viewing distance (rule of thumb, 3x longest image edge) you likely won't differentiate 20MP and 50MP. If it's a captivating image you won't be trying to. Barring pixel-peeping 'togs, no-one eyeballs a print from 3 inches, however large it is. Even billboards only need about 2MP. MP wars is nonsense that adds nothing to the art.
I appreciate the perspective! I was watching videos earlier today and one reviewer suggested that cropping for wildlife when it’s moving, like birds in flight, can benefit from higher MP because it’s beneficial to shoot with a wilder field of view, then crop for the final image. I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it. However I doubt Canon designed this hardware for the specific niche of bird photography. Thanks for watching!
When you take a picture of a bird in flight that is far away you end up cropping. 24 Megapixels is not enough. 50 Megapixels and I would be buying one. Till then my 5D Mark lV will do just fine.
That seems to be the one example I’m hearing. Same question applies though? Even if you crop have the pixels away, what are you doing with the remaining image that needs so many extra pixels? Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment :)
Do you shoot wildlife?
No, that’s why I asked you those questions. Because I want to know :)
R3 is targeted for sports and wild life, don't forget it means not only high speed, but sometimes also heavy cropping.
I’m guessing you meant “cropping” right? Lol, happens to me all the time. But I can see your point that sometimes cropping is needed. Even with heavy cropping, 24MP is more than enough for most uses. The vast majority of people share there images online at 2048 pixels or less. That means you can crop away 2/3 of the original image and it will still look great. For any cases where you have to crop a ton and then make a large print, PS and many other software solutions out there upscale using AI and work really well. Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and comment :)
@@GaryHughesOfficial Sorry about the spelling mistake. I'm not saying 24MP is bad in absolut term, but it's bad for he price, bad comparing to competition. The standards moves up, few years ago we are told that 8MP is more than enough, but where we are now? At that price point people are expecting no compromise performance. In sports or wildlife photograpgy (especially small animals like birds), in many case you just can get close enough even with long telephoto lenses, heavy cropping are usually involved, and you lose resolution very, very quickly. I can see the effect on my 24MP Sony camera, but that's just a 1800$ camera and I can live with that. With R3 we are talking about maybe 5000$, that's a different story.
I’m not sure I agree about the price point. One because I don’t know that it’s been announced yet, and second, the other features could very well outweigh the MP as far as value goes. Not completely sure how it’s gonna shake out, but you can be sure I will be talking about it more as more information is released :) appreciate your perspective
Megapixals dont matter. Its the software. I have a 40D 5ti 7DMK2 and 5Dmk2. They all make good 13x19 prints. A super sharp file and pro enlarging software does wonders for big big prints.
Yes indeed, even Photoshop can upscale using AI now. The megapixels do matter in so much as the quality of the sensor and its dynamic range, but the number of them is certainly not even close to the most important.
You can't change the bias that more is better. And Canon can't charge more money for less pixels.
Interesting perspective. But I think you will find you are wrong about the second thing. Sony released a very successful camera last year with 12MP for around almost $3k, the Canon 1DX3 is only 20. Point being, I think the R3 is aimed at a specific set of photographers. The ones who need or think they need loads more MP are definitely not going to buy it. That being said, I am interested to see what people say about it after it’s released and they get their hands on it. Thanks for watching and for your thoughts
Mora than enough
Agreed!
12mp is more than needed for any kind of prints 😂. If you aren't convinced then credit goes to marketing teams of camera companies.
The main argument I’ve heard is for wildlife photographers who like to crop in quite a bit on their images. I’ve had a chance to shoot with the R3 and it’s pretty great
@@GaryHughesOfficial wildlife is an exception and again I would choose a crop sensor which gives me 1.5x crop factor over a FF. I have no clue about Canon models. I am a Nikon shooter and using a 15 year old Nikon D700. I do have a 24mo crop sensor camera too but hardly uses it.
Same sh:t Sony said abt the A7S3. The MP is very important in our day . It’s matter!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder how much canon will pay to promoters so they brain wash consumers instead of putting mor MP .
Interesting that you would make that comparison here because the A7s3 has been one their most popular and critically acclaimed releases. The low MP and high quality sensor make it the perfect solution for certain photographers and video creators. Also, just a side note, although I have presented for Canon in the past, they don’t pay reviewers and they haven’t paid me a dime to talk about this. Putting out a 24MP camera that’s aimed at particular users doesn’t wipe the 45MP R5 out of existence, just get the right camera for you, no need to be upset about it :)
😏 You should retitle this video as: A justification for Micro Four Thirds…
…
And the Olympus shooters all said, “Amen!” Lol
@@GaryHughesOfficial I can still hear those guys high five’n too. But what about oft neglected Lumix G9/ GH5II, and now GH6 users…
…
@@superzero4250 all solid cameras, I'm sure. Mainly I hear that video creators like them for the features, price, and affordability. That being said, I don't know a single, serious professional who relies on them. Must still be a m4/3 bias out there when they would be perfectly great for what most people are using them for.
Everything canon is doing past 3-5 years is wrong ... Canon compitition is doing much much better with their products & with better options
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but “everything” is a bit heavy, don’t you think?At the very least they have made some of the best lenses they’ve ever had with the RF lineup. But, no worries, loads of cameras to choose from out there :) best of luck to you!
@@GaryHughesOfficial I am currently a Canon user from 2002-3 .. but sick & tired ok them lately not making one perfect camera,. For photos 5DSr is the best one can get... Better then the mirrorless lineup ,.. but for the videos that's where they start playing so many games they want to sell $30000, $20000, $15000, $10000, $6000, $3000, $1500, cameras so they are killing once camera to sell another 😁.. it's kind of dumb & on other hand we getting all we want in single camera like fujixt4 for hardly $1300 ... And not to mention other camera brands..
I hear you, but I don’t think there is one perfect camera because it depends on what you need as a user. The Xt4 is brilliant, but the ergonomics are awful, the menu system is a mess, and it’s an Aps-c sensor. Any of those things could make it not the perfect camera for some and not bother someone else at all. Canon hasn’t made the perfect camera for you yet, that’s totally fair to say. I’m sure that given some time they will hit the mark for you, but I understand your frustration. Thanks for watching and taking the time to give your feedback.
@@GaryHughesOfficial hey absolutely respect your time & replies... Please do keep making videos for us... Great channel,... 🙏🏽 Thanks
Hey, will do! Thanks for your time as well :)
BURN THE HERETIC!!!!! How dare you suggest I don't need 100mp to shoot email signature headshots and images of my lunch to post on IG.
Ok, just kidding. I built my business on the backs of 2 Fuji X-T1's(16mp) after a brief stint using a Rebel T3(12.2mp), and never had an issue with printing. I've had clients print headshots taken with those Fuji's as large as 16x20" for bus stop ads without issue. The resolution actually needed for stuff like that isn't much and those images could have easily been printed larger if need be. How many prints that size or larger are even meant to be viewed up close? I would guess very few.
He’s a witch!!!
allow me tisane you 6:51. the answer is yes.
lol, thanks for watching
CROPPING!!! That's the benefit of the 45MP r5. Good god this guy is dense.
Oh I understand cropping, to be sure. And if your style of shooting and intended use of the image requires you to crop that much then you probably do need a higher MP camera (I actually think I said that at the end of the video). Thanks for the watch and the feedback. I will continue to learn and grow as a photographer so I can conquer my destiny. I mean density :)
More megapixels seems like a scam
Not so much a scam, I think, but more like something that a lot of photographers don't fully understand. I appreciate you watching!
none
of this even matters
Not now that the camera is out and people mostly love it, no. At the time, though, it was super relevant, I swear