Traveler said:

Why did you think it was a technical move? It's the exact same mount just with a shorter distance between the lens and the sensor. And there are quite some advantages to it, especially for wider lenses. The RF 16 2.8 is one example of it. But also the RF 28-70 f/2.8, RF 14-35 f/4 etc. You don't see it with telephoto though. But it doesn't mean it can be any better than other ML mounts.

I don't understand the cries about the "closed" mount. For me, there are way more options in the RF mount than the Sony FE mount. Besides the FE mount is limited to 15 fps. So it depends on what a person prefers. Some will find better options in one mount, some in another. But it is definitely not about the numbers. A lot of options for the FE are just variations on the same focal length etc.
Yes, youtubers complain about it because there's not much more to say. And people just repeat them without thinking about it.

Click to expand...

I thought R mount was a technical move because that's what Canon touted when they released the R mount.

Canon's EF mount was open. Why does the RF mount have to be closed? It makes no sense.

Nice work!

Just one thing: both the R6 and R6 Mark II have the same EVF and rear LCD, there was no improvement AFAIK.

The EOS RP has magnesium in its contruction as well, which is a nice touch for the lower price point.

blackcoffee17 said:

I am enjoying my Canon lenses, thank you. No need for 15 different 85mm 1.8 variants.

Click to expand...

You have no choice. So there's no point in saying whether you need them or not.

Besides, Canon has already opened the RF mount for APS-C, right? That contradicts your argument.

Traveler said:

The main reason is that the 24-105 f/4L is based on the 20-years-old design and I'm sure they can do better now.

I don't say that the 24-105mm f/4 can be half the size or something. Just that I'm sure that they can make it noticeably smaller and lighter. For me, it is my main lens on a travel and every 100g counts.

Click to expand...

I agree, the lens could/ should be put on a diet or keep the weight and extend the focal length. A brand new design should be able to achieve a lighter lens. The current one weighs ≈ 700gr. It would be great if Canon could drop it to 560 ≈ 590 gr. That would be a 15-20% reduction, but probably a 630gr version (10%) is more realistic.

candyman said:

Of course you can use C-RAW. Image quality is good.

Click to expand...

I've been already using it. Still prefer smaller file size of 20 or 24 Mpix sensor
Of course, this is no deal breaker at all.

Canon Rumors said:

The DIGIC accelerator takes the heavy lifting from the main processor. It is what deals with processing the crazy amount of data that come from speed and resolution. The DIGIC processor is left to deal with rendering and whatnot.

It also deals with autofocus, the "learning" and the cross-type R1 stuff as well as exposure. Features like shooting video and stills at the same time, and offloading them to separate memory cards.

Think of the DIGIC Accelerator as a powerful GPU taking some of the processing duties from the CPU.

Dual DIGIC processors in some cameras used to be a thing. The difference here is the accelerator has specific duties, it's not just two processors working in parallel.

Click to expand...

You're just guessing though. Even the tech guys from Canon don't know what exactly does it do. My opinion is similar to yours – it helps the Digic X. And as you said, there used to be dual Digic in some cameras. This is probably something similar but the camera doesn't need double the speed so the accelerator is just a little brother.

My point was that the Digic accelerator probably isn't designed for a specific task like "AI autofocus" so an absence of it may not mean losing features. It may be that 30-ish MP is still fine for the Digic X alone, but for 45Mpix it needs a help. Or for cross-type (as you mentioned).

Or, the accelerator helps with the "basketball autofocus" feature and the R6iii won't have it.

One more point is that Digic X is not the same processor in every camera so the one in the R6iii may be more powerfull.

Anyways, just saying that having no Digic accelerator doesn't mean much.

blackcoffee17 said:

The 28-70 f/2.8 is smaller because of 28mm. My problem with the 24-105L is the price. It's way too expensive for what it is. The Nikon 24-120 F4 is almost 50% cheaper in UK.

Click to expand...

That is definitely not the only reason. Compare the 28-70 f/2.8 to the 24-70 f/2.8. The size and weight difference is huge and there's no way that those 4mm makes the lens almost double the weight.
I know there is the collapsible design that contributes to the size (but not the weight), also they developed smaller IS mechanism etc. The main reason is that the 24-105 f/4L is based on the 20-years-old design and I'm sure they can do better now.

I don't say that the 24-105mm f/4 can be half the size or something. Just that I'm sure that they can make it noticeably smaller and lighter. For me, it is my main lens on a travel and every 100g counts.

Only 20 hours left, are there any last little leaks !?

Canon Rumors said:

Ahh sweet, thanks for the correction. I've never used an R52. I wonder why that was in my head. It won't be now.

If the R63 readout is as fast as the R52, that's still a good thing.

Click to expand...

I really think that the readout speed is gonna be similar to the R6 mark 2.

Stig Nygaard said:

This is (must be) with mechanical sensor for the R6III. I don't think it tells much about sensor readout speed (*). If it was 1/320 with electronic shutter it would be a completely different matter ( => very fast sensor readout).
It is a good and fast mechanical shutter being able to do flash sync at 1/320s. But with a non-stacked sensor I wont expect the R6III to be able to do flash-sync at all with the electronic shutter.

(*) Or am I wrong? Is sensor readout speed also important for flash-sync with mechanical shutter?

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same. The sync speed is purely about the speed of the shutter, nothing to do with the speed of the sensor.

Toni said:

Years ago, I thinked that R mount was a technical move; now I think it was only a piece of marketing.
Canon R mount is still closed, so best move is buy a Sony camera (or other brand) and enjoy lenses from others manufacturers.
In 2025 there is no way in a thing SO CLOSED as R mount.

Click to expand...

Why did you think it was a technical move? It's the exact same mount just with a shorter distance between the lens and the sensor. And there are quite some advantages to it, especially for wider lenses. The RF 16 2.8 is one example of it. But also the RF 28-70 f/2.8, RF 14-35 f/4 etc. You don't see it with telephoto though. But it doesn't mean it can be any better than other ML mounts.

I don't understand the cries about the "closed" mount. For me, there are way more options in the RF mount than the Sony FE mount. Besides the FE mount is limited to 15 fps. So it depends on what a person prefers. Some will find better options in one mount, some in another. But it is definitely not about the numbers. A lot of options for the FE are just variations on the same focal length etc.
Yes, youtubers complain about it because there's not much more to say. And people just repeat them without thinking about it.

Traveler said:

I prefer smaller file sizes

Click to expand...

Of course you can use C-RAW. Image quality is good.

Traveler said:

Yes please. The current one seems to be just a tweaked EF version. Not the sharpest lens (but plenty sharp for me) but what I'd really want is to make it smaller and lighter. Seeing what they've done with the 28-70 f/2.8, there must be a way how to shave off some grams and millimetres. It's also among the four oldest RF lenses.

Click to expand...

The 28-70 f/2.8 is smaller because of 28mm. My problem with the 24-105L is the price. It's way too expensive for what it is. The Nikon 24-120 F4 is almost 50% cheaper in UK.

G650ER said:

Is this also hinting at a new RF 24-105 f/4L? If you zoom in you can see the 105mm end and the lens hood design looks new. I'd be super down for an improvement of this lens!

Click to expand...

Yes please. The current one seems to be just a tweaked EF version. Not the sharpest lens (but plenty sharp for me) but what I'd really want is to make it smaller and lighter. Seeing what they've done with the 28-70 f/2.8, there must be a way how to shave off some grams and millimetres. It's also among the four oldest RF lenses.

jma said:

I would assume that the term Digic X is more of a family of processors rather than one processor model.

Click to expand...

That is also the impression I have got for the "Digic X" monikor. I believe there already several versions of Digic X, and it could easily have received another update with the R6III release.
In the end it doesn't matter if some "spec" mentions a "Digic Accelerator" or not. It is features and performance of the camera that counts.

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.

Click to expand...

On the topic of R6 III not having the Digic Accelerator, i was thinking that maybe Canon have integrated the Digic Accelerator on to the processor itself. I would assume that the term Digic X is more of a family of processors rather than one processor model. Maybe this next iteration of the Digic X contains the Digic Accelerator and the functionalities of it. There are many advantages of integrating chips together: minimizing energy consumption, minimizing communication latencies etc. Downsides are heat dissipation and space but as the efficiency of the microchip architecture and fabrication techniques advances, it makes this less of an issue.

DhlcadR6 said:

I'm more interested in the 45mm f1.2 than R6iii, since it's pretty much confirmed there's no stacked CMOS with R6iii.

Click to expand...

They say “on par with the EF 50/1.2”. It may be a disappointment for many.
I’d be probably happy with it. Light weight is more important than sharpness to me.

Eloniel said:

Top LCD screen, video capabilities, eye-control AF, I would guess QF in general, maybe pre-capture.

Click to expand...

Sometimes it’s just about feeling more “pro”. People buy more expensive clothes or cars to feel better. I’m pretty sure some people buy more expensive cameras to feel better. And sometimes it’s about the clients. They see a photographer with a bigger camera as a more professional

Dirt McGirt said:

There are two things I am excited about: low light capability and the bump in auto focus. I'm strictly a hobbyist and I'm currently shooting a 6Dm2. Perhaps the r6m2 would be a big enough jump in both of those areas. Particularly the low light.

Thing is, I mostly shoot my kids sports and they play soccer/futsal and basketball. I'm really excited to try the action priority settings (in concert with the low light boost for futsal and basketball).

Only did a cursory search, but I haven't been able to find a ton of real world reviews about those soccer/basketball action modes. The reviews I did see say they're pretty good, but not earth shattering.

In any case, super excited to check it out.

Click to expand...

The R6ii would be great for kids sports: fantastic AF and low light performance.
The difference from your 6dii would be night & day
The R6iii won't be any better than the R6ii for your use case and you'll save a lot of money

SnowMiku said:

I'll be keeping a close eye on the used market for an R6 or R6 II. Aside from the extra MP and digic accelerator, what are the advantages with the R5 II over the R6 III?

Click to expand...

There are probably many advantages besides the main specs people usually look at. The quality and features of the EVF for example (including eye-control).
But much faster sensor readout from stacked sensor in R5II makes electronic shutter much more usable for action photography. There are some confusion in this thread (and the rumor-post) about relation between flash sync speed and sensor readout speed. That the R6III has a fast mechanical flash sync speed, does not mean the sensor readout is fast (*). Electronic shutter in R6III will have the normal limitations of a non-stacked sensor.

(*) It is true there is a relation between sensor readout speed and flash sync if you look at flash sync speed using the electronic shutter. But flash sync speed with mechanical shutter has nothing to do with that. The sensor readout speed in R6III wont be fast enough to support flash sync at all when using the electronic shutter. It is only a few high-end stacked sensor cameras that can do flash sync with electronic shutter (at least when looking at "big sensor" cameras).

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.

Click to expand...

Maybe the digic accelerator is needed for higher pixel count. They don’t use it for “AI” as Sony does. The digic X can already do ML AF. It may be a bit slower or may not provide some of the AF modes.

Some people still prefer the R3. I tried it at a Canon even and there’s something to the integrated vertical grip. Feels much better than a smaller camera with an ad on grip. And the R3 is much lighter than the R1

LesC said:

I'm wondering how the release of the R6 MKIII might affect R5/R5 MKII sales - the difference between the 24MP of the R6 MKII and R5 was quite significant but the 34MP of the MKIII is bringing it much closer to the R5/R5MKII's 45MP sensor ??

Click to expand...

Honestly I’d be happier with 24. I prefer smaller file sizes and more MP doesn’t bring me any benefits for what I shoot.

McMacmac said:

…. I'd be upgrading from the EOS R. I'd mainly do it for the AF system, but I'd lose crop ability.

Click to expand...

I don’t think you’ll lose anything. The R is a 30Mpix camera but when I compared it to the original R6 (20Mpix) it didn’t provide any more details and the R6ii is gonna be even better.
The R had a really soft AA filter in front of the sensor.