Nice to see that the resolution math is done correctly. Comparing the linear resolution, not megapixels.

On the subject of *** logging: Most of the time your phone is the only additional device you need, but connecting it reliably to the camera is problematic. So I've used it simply as *** logger with a simple and free program called ... "GPSlogger". Once you've given it sufficient permissions it will doggedly record your track as long as you don't turn your phone off. I have not noticed any excessive drain on battery. This on Android at least.

It would be really nice if the camera recorded compass heading, elevation angle and focus distance in the images. Those combined with the *** position would enable calculating the (approximate) focus point location later. Likely not relevant most of the time, but fun when recording far-away observations.

Nice article R5ii and R6iii should be a fun read, but if money and big files aren´t decisive factors, I´d guess most people go for R5ii.

Well, selling the R5 at 1.800 € to MPB is not really an option. First of all, wirkaufens.de gives you almost 2.100 € and on "kleinanzeigen" (belongs to eBay) you at least get 2.000 €. Switching the R5 to R6iii would cost me money atm. I could only sell the R5 now and buy the r6iii when cash back/ rebates kick in and such without losing (too much) money. The value of investing in this trade just doesn't pay off imo.

Anyway, I'm not selling my R5. I absolutely love this camera. Only thing: the 45mp are a curse and a blessing: on some occasions when I take hundreds (or even a couple of thousands) images at once, such as school plays. I really dread the amount of data. Meanwhile, for wildlife pics and landscapes, which I know I'll end up printing, it is a true blessing.

So, instead of investing 800-1000 € to switch (back) to the 32mp sweet spot (30 MP on my R was/ is my sweet spot) I'll invest that money in a R8. Gives me perfectly fine 24 MP for the occasions I don´t need 45 mp and a two camera setup when needed. I also considered the original R6 due the exact same controls as R5 and given the similar price point, but for hiking and family day trips with our baby coming soon, the R8 wins. Size and weight due matter here.

blackcoffee17 said:

I'm ok with the softness but certainly not expected this much CA. Looks like a 50 year old manual focus lens. The Nikon Z 50mm f1.8 S is exactly the same price in UK and there is no question which one is the better lens.

Click to expand...

I like what Nikon are doing with their midrange primes.

The new 45mm lens should have been RF 50mm 1.8L USM. Instant buy for under $1k.

Richard CR said:

I'll certainly do that, i had planned the next one to break down all three R6's -

Click to expand...

There is an article about that on Canons Germany website. But I got to admit: it is marketing suggesting you should upgrade... I bet your article will be better!

https://www.canon.de/pro/stories/eos-r6-mark-iii-vs-eos-r6-mark-ii-vs-eos-r6/

Also, Alex Cooke did kind a such a comparison on fstopper which is written well, but heavily favors the r6iii and doesn't credit R5ii too much imo.

Definitely one of my favorite Canon history pieces. Motor tech is something I've always been curious about but had never seen a good overview of. Thanks!

I was attracted by the screams of two 3-4 years old kids (armed with tiny sticks). Fortunately it was not a Komodo Dragon...

What I will do if there were no Common Waxbills around (sometimes mixed with the Chestnut Munia).... The strange light spot in eye of the first photo should be reflection from my lens - I have no other explanation...

ashmadux said:

Raising my hand as I MUCH prefer the r5 body form factor. That includes the top lcd.

I can't express enough how much the r62 body felt plasticity to me, and for reference my previous workhorse was a 5d3 tank. All I could do was keep looking at it and thinking ..THIS was 2500.00 + tax?!!

I also adapt my lenses - never selling my ef 70-200 2.8v2 - and in the r62 w/grip, it felt like it was gonna tear off the mount. This is not hyperbole..9t didn't feel right at all.

I'm just glad I enjoy my r5, so I don't need this... because 3k + no sigma lenses...no thank you.

To all else, enjoy....at least it's out of 24mp "jail"

Click to expand...

I much prefer the top plate LCD as an "idiot" check of my settings and loved the full-on mag alloy body as well - but I have heard some friends say they prefer the polycarbonate bodies because they always look "new" .. there's resale in there too, I guess. Fewer markings means you can resell it later on at a higher % of your purchase price, versus being scratched and dented, etc.

That's why we have choices, I suppose.

dave7 said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it to the R5 Mark II?

Click to expand...

I'll certainly do that, i had planned the next one to break down all three R6's -

This article was really looking at it from the upgrade perspective, and also, the 5D and R6 Mark III are the same size, weight, and right now, the same price.

I'm still getting used to doing these longer articles more often and doing more product comparisons and such, so it's all a learning experience.

PinholeR5 said:

Shouldn't the Max video res / rate for the R6 III be 7K/60 (instead of 8K/60)? I thought the 32.5MP was not enough for 8K, though I'm not that much into video so not exactly sure of the correct nomenclature.

Click to expand...

yes, thank you. 7k60p is the max resolution

If you shoot in Aperture priority with auto ISO, all of the shutter speeds (min shutter speed) are not available. It goes from 1/1000 to 1/2000. Letting people pick what they wanted would be nice and not that hard for Canon I would think.

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it to the R5 Mark II?

You usually only pay when the camera ships. Not sure if extended warranties are usually worth it but I do pick it up for the camera bodies and lenses most of the time.

The R6 III is an impressive camera.

screenshooter said:

What is wrong with all groups moving? Sure its more mass so the autofocus *could* be faster if it was true internally focused, but in my reading its generally easier to maintain sharpness and corrections when you move all the groups.

Click to expand...

First of all the weather sealing would be worse (In this case can be fixed by adding a UV filter as the filter thread seem to be on the fixed barrel).
Then as you said the focusing would be less then optimal.
Also all groups moving means it lacks optical compensation for focus breathing and close up IQ degradation. One can argue not a problem at this price point.

GMCPhotographics said:

I had several copies of the EF 50mm f1.2 L and I found it to be a frustrating lens to use. It was built like a tank and handled lfare really well. It had great colours and a lot of charector. BUT in low light (exactly when you want to use a f1.2 lens) it's AF was ponderous, hessitant and often would not lock on. I'm talking single point One shot mode. I would have to use one of the the verticle centre points on my 5DIII to have any hope. And yet my EF 24-70 L would nail AF effortlessly at 50mm and that was a lens far less bright in terms of light transmission. Which goes to show that wide open contrast was more importaint to the AF system than brightness or light level.
The other issue with the EF 50mm f1.2 L was the well documented aperture dependent focus shift. At close focus distances, if you stopped down to f2.8 (where this lens actually became quite sharp) the point of focus was fine in the view finder, but in the final shot, it would jump significantly.
I've not tried the EF 50mm f1.2 L on a modern mirroless camera body. but under the older DSLR AF system...it was too erratic and unreliable for my professional needs at the time.

Click to expand...

The aperture dependent focus shift of EF50L is from the undercorrected SA which also gave the lens its character in oof rendition. Which is less of a problem on mirrorless as focusing can work stepped down. But this new 45mm, from what I can see in the sample images actually feels more like overcorrected SA thus having a more vintage look than the EF 50L dreamy look for the bokeh. Which is also part of the reason why I'm disappointed that it is not the patent previously released.

Richard CR said:

Did a secondary article for the R6 Mark III .. my own crazy musings part deux of this release cycle.

I was going to do an R100 vs R6 Mark III, but Craig was worried we'd shame the R6 Mark III too much.

Canon EOS R6 Mark III vs Canon EOS R5 - Canon Rumors

Wanting to choose between the EOS R5 and new EOS R6 Mark III? Our article will help you compare the differences.

www.canonrumors.com

Click to expand...

Could you by any change also do R6iii v R5ii comparison? My heart want R5ii but my wallet prefer the R6iii

Eloniel said:

Not yet, only got it a week ago and didn't had time to read the full manual.

Click to expand...

Heh Heh ICWYDT.

Very nice shots, Noreaster.

Well done, Noreaster. I really like the last shot.

Immature common loon. They won't be back for 3-5 years. Good luck little buddy

Ring billed gull

I have a 6D now and I was just trying out the new R6 Mark III and the R5 Mark II at the Hunt’s show. I’m disappointed how small the Mirrorless bodies are. Sure I could use a battery grip but I don’t like using the grip all the time on my 6D such as when I doing street photography. Why are the bodies smaller but the RF lenses are about the same size as EF glass?

Raising my hand as I MUCH prefer the r5 body form factor. That includes the top lcd.

I can't express enough how much the r62 body felt plasticity to me, and for reference my previous workhorse was a 5d3 tank. All I could do was keep looking at it and thinking ..THIS was 2500.00 + tax?!!

I also adapt my lenses - never selling my ef 70-200 2.8v2 - and in the r62 w/grip, it felt like it was gonna tear off the mount. This is not hyperbole..9t didn't feel right at all.

I'm just glad I enjoy my r5, so I don't need this... because 3k + no sigma lenses...no thank you.

To all else, enjoy....at least it's out of 24mp "jail"