Latest activity

DocInfoSci · Nov 17, 2025

Yeah, it's been interesting to sit quietly to see what came of the R6 III. As predicted, it looks to be a fantastic camera for people who are moving into the R series or moving up from the R8, etc. And I hope it does fantastically well, just to support the ecosystem of cameras and lenses that I use.

And I like Richard's analogy of the R6 III being positioned as the "poor man's R5 x". It very much seems that's the alignment: R5 if you're making bank, and R6 if you're carving out your place with video as a key consideration and can live with the extra time / fidgeting to achieve similar effect wherever the R6 doesn't have the exact same functionality / buttons as the R5.

But for the R6 and R6 II, which I feel via their 1d series sensor / CPU heritage were more geared for light / speed, these feel like different products altogether. It feels like Canon is moving that capability back into the R1/3 line and repositioning the R6 III+ as a lower tier to the R5 rather than an alternative tier. As much as eyes roll about that moaning, it means the cost for light performance goes up by a comparably ridiculous amount. The kind of cash most people in my family will never have, even though their real world shooting far more needs that than pixels.

I just took a photo of a quick moving animal on a farm the other day in soft daylight with ~ 25k ISO and good glass. It's a fantastic shot, one the farmer is thrilled with. Despite the ISO the picture is remarkably clean SOC (available photons have way more to do with quality outcome than ISO on these cameras). I'm still waiting to see if the R6 III can replicate clean daylight shots at that ISO for the speed, etc. needed in the moment.

The R6 makes beautiful, clean photos in the real world. For the fewer pixels I do what any 1D owner does -- get longer glass, etc. Which I understand is a luxury, but less so in the modern world. Unless the R6 III "low light" capability swims with the R6 and R6 II I think it's a pass for those who bought into the series for other than "a more affordable R5". Again, that's a real shame for real world use and the majority of people outside of the YouTube / Tik Tok sphere. Which is most people I know between the ages of 20 and 50.

But I hope this new edition smokes the market. In all other respects it seems like it has a lot going for it!

WoodyWindy · Nov 17, 2025

Patent trolls.

The patents themselves are probably junk (flunking either the "novelty" or "obviousness" test, or both). But the way these company's work is they go after little guys to build up some cash from settlements so that they then have money to engage the bigger fish.

Del Paso · Nov 17, 2025

I once tested the same lens (Summilux 35mm at f/4) on Leica M 240 (24MP) and on the R5 II (45MP), using a heavy tripod.
The difference in quality was very visible, and the main reason why I don't use the M as often as before. I didn't expect such a difference...
I'll never turn back to lower MP cameras.

AlanF · Nov 17, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
Yes we are dealing with an area X*Y, so a big increse in megapixels doesn't always relate to a big increase in actual sensor resolution. I'm finding a slight increase in detail between the 24mp R6ii and the 45mp R5. I honestly thought there would be more. Sure...bigger files and more pixels for sure, but not that much more actual detail at 100% or even both viewed side by side large. The R5 has 87% more pixels, 36% more inlear resolution, however I would say that the increase in actual detail that is observable in the final images (while subjective) is a lot lower, maybe 10% more at most.

Optyzcne.pl carefully measures the resolution of sensors. They find R6 ii at f/4 resolves 64 lp/mm https://www.optyczne.pl/485.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R6_Mark_II_Rozdzielczość.html and the R5 82 lp/mm https://www.optyczne.pl/457.4-Test_aparatuCanon_EOS_R5_Rozdzielczość.html That gives the R5 a measured 28% advantage with a sharp lens at f/4, close to the theoretical.

For narrower apertures the difference decreases, and drops to about 10% at f/16. Low quality lenses will also lower the difference as will poor technique. I could see the significantly better resolution of bird plumage using the R5 vs the original R6.

roby17269 · Nov 17, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
Yes we are dealing with an area X*Y, so a big increse in megapixels doesn't always relate to a big increase in actual sensor resolution. I'm finding a slight increase in detail between the 24mp R6ii and the 45mp R5. I honestly thought there would be more. Sure...bigger files and more pixels for sure, but not that much more actual detail at 100% or even both viewed side by side large. The R5 has 87% more pixels, 36% more inlear resolution, however I would say that the increase in actual detail that is observable in the final images (while subjective) is a lot lower, maybe 10% more at most.

In my view, in order to obtain more detail, all else being equal (lens, subject distance, etc.), it's not only about having a higher resolution sensor, but it is also about how you use that sensor: my experience with the R5 is that, unless I use a tripod, I need to shoot at at least 1/(4 * fl) shutter speed to see good pixel-level sharpness, because higher resolution means less tolerance to micro vibrations.

Using a temperamental 80mp medium format back has taught me that shooting discipline is important (different beast obviously since that sensor is significantly bigger at 54*40mm).

Personally, I'd rather have more mp's than less, but I am aware that extracting the maximum detail promised by higher resolution requires more work.

GMCPhotographics · Nov 17, 2025

roby17269 said:
Well, language does matter though:
"more pixels" -> 32.5mp v 24mp -> +35%
"linear resolution" -> 6982 v 6000 -> +16%

Yes we are dealing with an area X*Y, so a big increse in megapixels doesn't always relate to a big increase in actual sensor resolution. I'm finding a slight increase in detail between the 24mp R6ii and the 45mp R5. I honestly thought there would be more. Sure...bigger files and more pixels for sure, but not that much more actual detail at 100% or even both viewed side by side large. The R5 has 87% more pixels, 36% more inlear resolution, however I would say that the increase in actual detail that is observable in the final images (while subjective) is a lot lower, maybe 10% more at most.

JustUs7 · Nov 17, 2025

Del Paso said:
Silly question: What do 35% more pixels and 16% more linear resolution mean in terms of cropping possibility?

About 16%

Del Paso · Nov 17, 2025

AlanF said:
You are absolutely correct. I am afraid resolution is a concept that can be and does get misunderstood. "The resolution of a system is based on the minimum distance r at which the points can be distinguished as individuals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution As such it is a linear measurement of distance. The relative resolution of sensors of similar size is given by the ratio of the square roots of their number of pixels, not their total number. The resolution of lenses and sensors you read in charts and specifications is always given as a linear measurement, like lines per mm or line pairs per mm or picture height, or dots per inch - all are linear resolutions.

Silly question: What do 35% more pixels and 16% more linear resolution mean in terms of cropping possibility?

AlanF · Nov 17, 2025

roby17269 said:
Well, language does matter though:
"more pixels" -> 32.5mp v 24mp -> +35%
"linear resolution" -> 6982 v 6000 -> +16%

You are absolutely correct. I am afraid resolution is a concept that can be and does get misunderstood. "The resolution of a system is based on the minimum distance r at which the points can be distinguished as individuals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution As such it is a linear measurement of distance. The relative resolution of sensors of similar size is given by the ratio of the square roots of their number of pixels, not their total number. The resolution of lenses and sensors you read in charts and specifications is always given as a linear measurement, like lines per mm or line pairs per mm or picture height, or dots per inch - all are linear resolutions.

rombe3jr · Nov 17, 2025

At almost 1/3 the cost of the R6 III the R8 is probably the best value option available from not only Canon but any major camera manufacturer for a full frame sensor right now.

roby17269 · Nov 17, 2025

HMC11 said:
Resolution comparison can indeed be confusing. The quoted sensor resolution (e.g. 20mpx, 32mpx etc) refers to the multiplication of the number of pixels along the length and breath of the sensor. To work out ‘resolution’, it is the number of pixels along either the length or breath that is compared (i.e. how many pixels can fit in a given length, which is a linear comparison). For instance, a 24mpx FF sensor (3:2 ratio, 36x24mm) will have 6000 by 4000 pixels, whereas a 32.5mpx FF sensor has approximately 6982 by 4655 pixels. Comparing the number of pixels along either the length or breath shows that the 32.5mpx sensor has 16% more pixels over the 24mpx.

Hope this helps.

Well, language does matter though:
"more pixels" -> 32.5mp v 24mp -> +35%
"linear resolution" -> 6982 v 6000 -> +16%

Del Paso · Nov 17, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
I think the jump between an EOS R and 5D4 would be a massive difference because of the view finder and even the wayt he AF works is very different.
For me, I can happily navigte between a pair of different cameras is the generation gap isn't too large. Ideally they would be the same camera, but one generation gap is fine for me as long as I regulary do a dry run with the cameras to train my instincts and muscle memory. I found the R8 and R6ii combo ok, especially when i customised them both to function in a similar way. I did find the lack of a third wheel on the R8 difficult to navigate. I would also see a huge difference betweent he EVF resolution and size between them too. That's something i'm not finding between the R6ii and R5.
I also find that it helps if I pair a specific lens or type of lens on one camera and stick to it so i think of that camera as a lens and not a camera.
For me I put a prime on my R5 and a zoom on my R6ii.
Comparatively, I have two cars on my driveway. One is an auto and the other is a manual. it's been like this for a long time and I can swich between both without any complication or head strain. It just takes a bit of practice.

Strangely, using a Canon MILC or DSLR together with a Leica M is OK with me, maybe because the cameras are totally different in their concept ergonomics.
But you are absolutely right, how wide the generation gap is, matters. No issues when I'm using an EOS R and an R5 II. Just the on/off switch can be a very minor annoyance, the absence of a 3rd. wheel a bit more.

GMCPhotographics · Nov 17, 2025

Del Paso said:
Shooting with 2 ergonomically different cameras can quickly turn into a nightmare.
When using the R5 II, I no longer use the exposure-meter, but mostly rely on what the EVF shows me. But when I used simultaneously the R and a 5 DIV, I sometimes forgot that a DSLR's OVF doesn't show you the final picture...ouch!

I think the jump between an EOS R and 5D4 would be a massive difference because of the view finder and even the wayt he AF works is very different.
For me, I can happily navigte between a pair of different cameras is the generation gap isn't too large. Ideally they would be the same camera, but one generation gap is fine for me as long as I regulary do a dry run with the cameras to train my instincts and muscle memory. I found the R8 and R6ii combo ok, especially when i customised them both to function in a similar way. I did find the lack of a third wheel on the R8 difficult to navigate. I would also see a huge difference betweent he EVF resolution and size between them too. That's something i'm not finding between the R6ii and R5.
I also find that it helps if I pair a specific lens or type of lens on one camera and stick to it so i think of that camera as a lens and not a camera.
For me I put a prime on my R5 and a zoom on my R6ii.
Comparatively, I have two cars on my driveway. One is an auto and the other is a manual. it's been like this for a long time and I can swich between both without any complication or head strain. It just takes a bit of practice.

GMCPhotographics · Nov 17, 2025

I needed a 2nd camera urgently, I was aware of the release dates for the R6iii and the high initial list price for it too because of this site. I could buy another R6ii for a really good price (UK grey market), however a great price on a R5 came up that I just couldn't refuse. I think for me, i'm pretty much covered with these two great cameras. Sure there are slight nods and favours that each camera offers. I think I'll wait for a year and upgrade my R5 to a mkII and have access to a stacked sensor. In waiting for a year, the price and suplly will stabilise more. I'm not sure there is enough in the R6iii for me to upgrade from my mkII. Maybe I'll wait for a future mk4 instead. The mkIII is looking like a great camera, it's just not enough (for me) against a superb mkII.
In my experiance, if you buy on pre-order, you are paying top dollar for a camera that has bugs and doesnt work well with light room for a while. You are also playing the supply waiting list game. The days of the massive changes to the camera outpur quality with each release are well and truely over. Each release is like a mild warm over now.
Your milage might vary and you really want this camera, but for me, I'm happy to wait and see.

Ozarker · Nov 16, 2025

LogicExtremist said:
Maybe check out Alistair's posts of dpreview, he has been called out countless times for jumping to Canon's defense at the slightest hint of criticism of a product. His modus operandi is the basic Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy - "I can't see any problem with it, so there are no problems, so nobody should say anything negative about it". People on that forum have also said to him after looking at how bad his photos are, that he shouldn't be advising anyone about anything. Just a pre-emptive post to stop him polluting this forum in the way he does over there, best to call it out. You need to understand, when someone has very low photography skills it is easy for the gear to far exceed their abilities, so naturally, everything looks good to them, and so they tell everyone that gear is good for EVERYONE, and nobody should complain. No mind reading needed, just a simple logical inference (drawing conclusions based on evidence and reasoning), exaggerated with a little hyperbole for amusement, to sum up Alistair's typical posts and behavior on the other forum - if you don't believe me look it up. Anyway, enjoy your day!

Sane people don't wander around the net getting in pissing contests about what's better, making accusations, or requiring others to see things exactly like they do. I don't shivagit what someone says somewhere else.

GMCPhotographics · Nov 16, 2025

AdamBotond said:
I was wondering what would be the downside of omitting the digic accelerator. Worse AF maybe? We are about to find out how much the accelerator contributes in real life (compared to cameras having one).
Also, introduction of R6 III kills off the R3 line pretty much IMO. On paper, the R6 III is an upgraded R3 apart from the chasis.

Not really. the R3 still has a stacked sensor, larger buffer and higher Rez EVF. Pro build, superior battery and top pro build.
The R6II was a R3 lite, the R6iii is still very much related to the previous model.

P-visie · Nov 16, 2025

AlanF said:
There is a Group 3, of which I am one, R5/R5ii owners who like the R7 as a complement to our full frame with slightly better reach and useful with some lighter lenses. We are ones who want the R7 to have the same ergonomics as the R5 series and I presume would be candidates for an R7ii.

Group 3 also includes R5/R5 Mk II owners who did not buy the R7 because they did not like the ergonomics, viewfinder and electronic shutter performance.

AlanF · Nov 16, 2025

Quack said:
Unlike the many posters who pretend to know what the majority of consumers want, I do not pretend to know, but here is my guess. I think (but do not know) that there are basically two main groups of R7 owners. Group 1: those who want to get into birding and wildlife, but have a limited budget. Group 2: Those who had the 7D or 7D II and want a higher end camera for birding and wildlife, but settled for the R7. My guess is that Canon looks at Group1 and assumes that this group will not be interested in an R7 II, and would be the type of consumer who will keep their camera for 7, 8 or more years. So only Group 2, would be potential buyers of an R7 II if it moves upmarket. So my guess is that the R7 II moves upmarket, and the original R7 will still be sold for some time.

There is a Group 3, of which I am one, R5/R5ii owners who like the R7 as a complement to our full frame with slightly better reach and useful with some lighter lenses. We are ones who want the R7 to have the same ergonomics as the R5 series and I presume would be candidates for an R7ii.

Exploreshootshare · Nov 16, 2025

mbochen said:
It isn't as bad, when you get used to it. At least with exposure and basic autofocus controls. During the field works (nature/wildlife inventories, etc.) I'm using R6II (with tele) and R8 (with standard/wide angle or macro). In both cameras upper dials control time and apperture. While I use mostly Auto Iso, at R6II, control dial set exposure conpensation. At R8 I do it by holding "up" on control pad and adjusting main dial (next to shutter button). In both cameras I use quite similar back button focus setup, at least for two buttons.

Thx for sharing your experience. I´m with you on scroll wheel. The thing is without a joystick and a scroll wheel the handling of the camera changes drastically imho. Plus, since I heavily rely on the EVF and the joystick it really changes my personal style.

mbochen said:
I'm very happy with size and performacne of R8. From my perspective, I'd change control pad for control dial. And no more other major changes are needed.
(Since "*** in R cameras" is now banned topic at the forum, I won't mention it ).

I´m pretty impressed by the R8 (I tested it for a few hours already) and can do with the low res EVF and some quirks. GPS is still on my wishlist, I don´t care if drains the battery too much. If SP can do it, cameras should be able to do it as well. But for the R8, GSP would ruin the small form factor...

Del Paso said:
Shooting with 2 ergonomically different cameras can quickly turn into a nightmare.
When using the R5 II, I no longer use the exposure-meter, but mostly rely on what the EVF shows me. But when I used simultaneously the R and a 5 DIV, I sometimes forgot that a DSLR's OVF doesn't show you the final picture...ouch!

Hehe very interesting experiences. thx for sharing.
It is kind of amusing how this matter can perceived so differently in just two posts. I figure it all relates to ones style of shooting and therefore how big the adaption would be. In my case, it would be big...

But: after thinking about it and talking to my wife - no, three cameras are not in play here (anymore)

- I decided to get the R8 because for hiking and family trips it just fits perfectly. The R6 has nearly the weight and size of the R5, so no benefit there. And if shooting with two different ergonomics set-ups at once is too annoying, I'll rent a second body for the diamond wedding and a couple of other events.

AlanF · Nov 16, 2025

Following on Pieter's post, she is honoured also by awards in her name: Institute of Physics https://www.iop.org/about/awards/gold-medals/katharine-burr-blodgett-medal-and-prize-recipients; the Society for Chemistry and Industry https://www.soci.org/awards/honours/katharine-burr-blodgett-award, and I learned about the Langmuir-Blodgett trough as a student 60 years ago. And she hasn't been ignored in photography, being awarded the 1972 achievement prize from the Photographic Society of America.

We are all sitting in front of the most comprehensive search engines and it takes just seconds to check facts.

ashmadux · Nov 16, 2025

LogicExtremist said:
The 'supply woes' press releases are just marketing scams to psychologically manipulate gullible consumers.

For anyone interested, this is how it works:

When companies announce that delivery delays are caused by an overwhelming number of orders, they are tapping into well-documented psychological triggers that increase perceived value and urgency. This framing creates an impression of extreme popularity, which activates social proof - the assumption that if many others are buying the product, it must be desirable or superior. It also leverages scarcity psychology, where consumers fear missing out and therefore become more motivated to purchase quickly, even if they were undecided.

In many cases, these claims are strategically timed during product launches to generate hype, shape public perception, and inflate the sense of demand, regardless of whether supply chain factors or deliberate production pacing are the real causes of the delay. By shifting attention to supposed high demand, companies deflect from logistical shortcomings while simultaneously strengthening the emotional appeal of the product.

Now, there's also the psychology of pre-purchasing which is equally amusing:

Consumers who pre-order products before they are released or properly tested are often driven by a mix of psychological biases and emotional motives that override careful evaluation. Pre-ordering taps into anticipatory reward, where the excitement of being 'first' creates a dopamine-driven impulse that feels rewarding even before the product arrives. This behaviour is reinforced by FOMO (fear of missing out) and scarcity cues, especially when companies imply limited stock or high demand. It also reflects optimism bias, the assumption that a new product will meet expectations despite a lack of real-world data. For some consumers, pre-ordering becomes tied to identity and belonging - they want to feel part of the 'in-group' of early adopters, or they align their self-image with a brand’s narrative. In extreme cases, this behaviour becomes a form of self-justification, where placing a pre-order suppresses underlying doubts, because committing early feels like a way to validate one’s loyalty and reduce uncertainty. Altogether, these factors create a psychological environment in which emotion, status, and anticipation overpower measured decision-making.

Make sure to get those pre-orders in folks - you wouldn’t want to miss the thrill of buying something untested just so you can defend it before you’ve even used it.

As a psychology fan, this was fantastically interesting compared to the normal product -related comments, typically composed of proud members of the Canon defense force or more analytical / cynics of corporate shenanigans amongst us.

Good show

Del Paso · Nov 16, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
Yes, I love the package the R8 offers and the price point is now really compelling.

Yes, that scroll wheel and for me personally the joystick heavily favor the R6... if the R8 had at least one of them. IBIS is not an issue/ a need for me. While hiking the R8 works wonderful the lightweight joby tripod and for long-exposures (waterfalls e.g.) I´d use that anyway.

The R8 has a totally different control setup which is fine when I go hiking and only bring one camera. Next year I´m shooting - amongst others - my in grandparents-in-law (is that really a thing?) diamond wedding anniversary. I´m sure I'll need a two camera setup for these events and using two bodies with nearly completely different ergonomics and controls sounds like a nightmare...

Shooting with 2 ergonomically different cameras can quickly turn into a nightmare.
When using the R5 II, I no longer use the exposure-meter, but mostly rely on what the EVF shows me. But when I used simultaneously the R and a 5 DIV, I sometimes forgot that a DSLR's OVF doesn't show you the final picture...ouch!

JustUs7 · Nov 16, 2025

cocopop05 said:
Referring to article https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-r6-series-comparision/.

This is an excellent article, I find comparisons on technology improvements in products very interesting and it also provides good intelligence for those looking to either justify buying the new model or buying the previous one for a lot less cost.

One thing in the article I am not sure I have understood correctly is the resolution increase. It is listed as 16% from the Mark III over the Mark II Resolution Increase from R6 Mark II. However that resolution increase is per dimension if I have understood it correctly.

The resolution increase in MP for the Mark III over the Mark II is 34%, and is 64% for the Mark III over the Mark I.

I feel this gives a much better representation of the detail increase on the newer models.

The article has a few mistakes represented as fact. Unless it’s been cleaned up. The mistakes have been pointed out in this thread.

mbochen · Nov 16, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
Yes, I love the package the R8 offers and the price point is now really compelling.

Yes, that scroll wheel and for me personally the joystick heavily favor the R6... if the R8 had at least one of them. IBIS is not an issue/ a need for me. While hiking the R8 works wonderful the lightweight joby tripod and for long-exposures (waterfalls e.g.) I´d use that anyway.

The R8 has a totally different control setup which is fine when I go hiking and only bring one camera. Next year I´m shooting - amongst others - my in grandparents-in-law (is that really a thing?) diamond wedding anniversary. I´m sure I'll need a two camera setup for these events and using two bodies with nearly completely different ergonomics and controls sounds like a nightmare...

It isn't as bad, when you get used to it. At least with exposure and basic autofocus controls. During the field works (nature/wildlife inventories, etc.) I'm using R6II (with tele) and R8 (with standard/wide angle or macro). In both cameras upper dials control time and apperture. While I use mostly Auto Iso, at R6II, control dial set exposure conpensation. At R8 I do it by holding "up" on control pad and adjusting main dial (next to shutter button). In both cameras I use quite similar back button focus setup, at least for two buttons.
I'm very happy with size and performacne of R8. From my perspective, I'd change control pad for control dial. And no more other major changes are needed.
(Since "GPS in R cameras" is now banned topic at the forum, I won't mention it

).

HMC11 · Nov 16, 2025

cocopop05 said:
One thing in the article I am not sure I have understood correctly is the resolution increase. It is listed as 16% from the Mark III over the Mark II Resolution Increase from R6 Mark II. However that resolution increase is per dimension if I have understood it correctly.

The resolution increase in MP for the Mark III over the Mark II is 34%, and is 64% for the Mark III over the Mark I.

I feel this gives a much better representation of the detail increase on the newer models.

Resolution comparison can indeed be confusing. The quoted sensor resolution (e.g. 20mpx, 32mpx etc) refers to the multiplication of the number of pixels along the length and breath of the sensor. To work out ‘resolution’, it is the number of pixels along either the length or breath that is compared (i.e. how many pixels can fit in a given length, which is a linear comparison). For instance, a 24mpx FF sensor (3:2 ratio, 36x24mm) will have 6000 by 4000 pixels, whereas a 32.5mpx FF sensor has approximately 6982 by 4655 pixels. Comparing the number of pixels along either the length or breath shows that the 32.5mpx sensor has 16% more pixels over the 24mpx.

Hope this helps.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics