Sorry my bad, what I mean is if 24MP is really what most pro photographer who are going to buy a $6000+ flagship camera wanted Sony and Nikon's flagship would stayed in this MP range.
AmbientMike wrote:
EdwardDye wrote:
Since the OP is asking about R1 or R3, I would imagine the MP does matter to him, if the 24MP is all he wanted he would already bought the R3 without even thinking about if higher MP R1 is worth waiting for.
Also if 24MP is really what most pro photographer wanted Sony and Nikon would stayed in this MP range.
TeamSpeed wrote:
Well, you could just substitute hidef displays instead of prints, it doesn't matter. The output medium requires high resolution either way. It doesn't matter if we talk prints, or digital displays. Prints can be high definition too, even more than an 8K display even, so the two are interchangeable, just change my 20" and 14" parameters to be something else. If you want to pay the price, you can print images at 6K DPI.
That being said, you glossed over the most important point I made.
If you know you need this kind of resolution, you already know you cannot utilize the R3. You wouldn't be in threads discussing whether the R3 is for you, you already know that it is resolution-bound and it may not work for you. You also would not be these types of folks that have purchased an R3, then later try to sell them plus cash to go to an R5, you would either already have a 5DS or R5 or some Canon competition.
If you don't meet any of those 3 points I made (again substitute print for display even), then the R3 could very well be the right camera for you, barring any budgetary issues.
Good point but I didn't bring the MP into the discussion myself because the op seems pretty happy using the 20mp. Didn't making any comments about resolution really.
Canon has the 20mp r6, sony up to 33mp on the A74, a bit of a yawn, and has 12mp A7S series
Sorry my bad, what I mean is if 24MP is really what most pro photographer who are going to buy a $6000+ flagship camera wanted Sony and Nikon's flagship would stayed in this MP range.
I was pretty happy with A9II's 24MP before getting the 50MP A1, but after getting the A1 I never want to go back to the 24MP A9II again, I liked the A1 so much I bought another one
AmbientMike wrote:
EdwardDye wrote:
Since the OP is asking about R1 or R3, I would imagine the MP does matter to him, if the 24MP is all he wanted he would already bought the R3 without even thinking about if higher MP R1 is worth waiting for.
Also if 24MP is really what most pro photographer wanted Sony and Nikon would stayed in this MP range.
TeamSpeed wrote:
Well, you could just substitute hidef displays instead of prints, it doesn't matter. The output medium requires high resolution either way. It doesn't matter if we talk prints, or digital displays. Prints can be high definition too, even more than an 8K display even, so the two are interchangeable, just change my 20" and 14" parameters to be something else. If you want to pay the price, you can print images at 6K DPI.
That being said, you glossed over the most important point I made.
If you know you need this kind of resolution, you already know you cannot utilize the R3. You wouldn't be in threads discussing whether the R3 is for you, you already know that it is resolution-bound and it may not work for you. You also would not be these types of folks that have purchased an R3, then later try to sell them plus cash to go to an R5, you would either already have a 5DS or R5 or some Canon competition.
If you don't meet any of those 3 points I made (again substitute print for display even), then the R3 could very well be the right camera for you, barring any budgetary issues.
Good point but I didn't bring the MP into the discussion myself because the op seems pretty happy using the 20mp. Didn't making any comments about resolution really.
Canon has the 20mp r6, sony up to 33mp on the A74, a bit of a yawn, and has 12mp A7S series
Sorry my bad, what I mean is if 24MP is really what most pro photographer who are going to buy a $6000+ flagship camera wanted Sony and Nikon's flagship would stayed in this MP range.
I was pretty happy with A9II's 24MP before getting the 50MP A1, I liked it so much I bought another one
AmbientMike wrote:
EdwardDye wrote:
Since the OP is asking about R1 or R3, I would imagine the MP does matter to him, if the 24MP is all he wanted he would already bought the R3 without even thinking about if higher MP R1 is worth waiting for.
Also if 24MP is really what most pro photographer wanted Sony and Nikon would stayed in this MP range.
TeamSpeed wrote:
Well, you could just substitute hidef displays instead of prints, it doesn't matter. The output medium requires high resolution either way. It doesn't matter if we talk prints, or digital displays. Prints can be high definition too, even more than an 8K display even, so the two are interchangeable, just change my 20" and 14" parameters to be something else. If you want to pay the price, you can print images at 6K DPI.
That being said, you glossed over the most important point I made.
If you know you need this kind of resolution, you already know you cannot utilize the R3. You wouldn't be in threads discussing whether the R3 is for you, you already know that it is resolution-bound and it may not work for you. You also would not be these types of folks that have purchased an R3, then later try to sell them plus cash to go to an R5, you would either already have a 5DS or R5 or some Canon competition.
If you don't meet any of those 3 points I made (again substitute print for display even), then the R3 could very well be the right camera for you, barring any budgetary issues.
Good point but I didn't bring the MP into the discussion myself because the op seems pretty happy using the 20mp. Didn't making any comments about resolution really.
Canon has the 20mp r6, sony up to 33mp on the A74, a bit of a yawn, and has 12mp A7S series
Sorry my bad, what I mean is if 24MP is really what most pro photographer who are going to buy a $6000+ flagship camera wanted Sony and Nikon's flagship would stayed in this MP range.
AmbientMike wrote:
EdwardDye wrote:
Since the OP is asking about R1 or R3, I would imagine the MP does matter to him, if the 24MP is all he wanted he would already bought the R3 without even thinking about if higher MP R1 is worth waiting for.
Also if 24MP is really what most pro photographer wanted Sony and Nikon would stayed in this MP range.
TeamSpeed wrote:
Well, you could just substitute hidef displays instead of prints, it doesn't matter. The output medium requires high resolution either way. It doesn't matter if we talk prints, or digital displays. Prints can be high definition too, even more than an 8K display even, so the two are interchangeable, just change my 20" and 14" parameters to be something else. If you want to pay the price, you can print images at 6K DPI.
That being said, you glossed over the most important point I made.
If you know you need this kind of resolution, you already know you cannot utilize the R3. You wouldn't be in threads discussing whether the R3 is for you, you already know that it is resolution-bound and it may not work for you. You also would not be these types of folks that have purchased an R3, then later try to sell them plus cash to go to an R5, you would either already have a 5DS or R5 or some Canon competition.
If you don't meet any of those 3 points I made (again substitute print for display even), then the R3 could very well be the right camera for you, barring any budgetary issues.
Good point but I didn't bring the MP into the discussion myself because the op seems pretty happy using the 20mp. Didn't making any comments about resolution really.
Canon has the 20mp r6, sony up to 33mp on the A74, a bit of a yawn, and has 12mp A7S series
Jan 10, 2022 at 04:53 PM
Previous versions of EdwardDye's message #15824824 « Canon R1 or R3 »
