• roby17269
    I would not put much stock on those limits... there's no strong correlation between max ISO and noise quality at comparable lower ISO...
  • Exploreshootshare
    On mpb.com the RP starts at 560 € and goes to around 640 €. The R8 starts at 920 € and goes to 1.180 € (which is insane considering that...
  • D
    Yup! I really, really want the 32 pixels to be the same quality of jump. But by Canon's own configuration options (64k ISO), it seems...
  • roby17269
    but the jump 20 -> 24 is really minute, almost invisible I see it in a different way: at high ISO I can downsize R5 images to look the...
  • AlanF
    It's good you are listening. There can be effects from other factors like the anti-alias filter or the nature of recording of the...
  • D
    Hmm. That hasn't been my experience in the real word, so other factors might be at play - such as how well the sub-pixels with smears...
  • Walrus
    Yes, RP is inferior, but not more then twice as inferior, given the price; yes, R8 is way better, but it's not THAT better to spend...
  • AlanF
    If you look at an image at the same physical size, say the image from a FF sensor from different cameras printed at the same size...
  • D
    True, which is probably why our forum's various R5 vs R6 chit-chats tend to fizzle. But, they are close in tech generation, too. Yes...
  • AlanF
    At low light levels for just about all sensors in the last decade or more, the limiting factor is the noise in the light itself - the...
  • Exploreshootshare
    I´d disagree because the RP has older generation AF, only 3 FPS, older sensor and no animal or vehicle detect AF. Considering these...
  • Exploreshootshare
    Is there any difference at all in low light capabilities between the R6i/ ii/ iii? Looking at the spec sheet, I´d say no, but maybe I'm...
  • D
    I wouldn't hesitate, if you need that lens, go for it!
  • roby17269
    At an image level the noise will be very similar: they're all FF sensor and sensor size, not sensor resolution, is the main driver, all...
  • Walrus
    I'd say it's the RP, which at 400€ on average will cost used around 1/7 of the R6III, but if you're happy to spend around around 100€...
  • D
    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...
  • WoodyWindy
    Patent trolls. :( The patents themselves are probably junk (flunking either the "novelty" or "obviousness" test, or both). But the way...
  • D
    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...
  • AlanF
    Optyzcne.pl carefully measures the resolution of sensors. They find R6 ii at f/4 resolves 64 lp/mm...
  • roby17269
    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...
  • GMCPhotographics
    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...
  • J
    About 16% 😁
  • D
    Silly question: What do 35% more pixels and 16% more linear resolution mean in terms of cropping possibility?
  • AlanF
    You are absolutely correct. I am afraid resolution is a concept that can be and does get misunderstood. "The resolution of a system is...
  • R
    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...
  • Filter

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    37,274
    Messages
    967,077
    Members
    24,634
    Latest member
    Mcsnows

    Gallery statistics

    Categories
    1
    Albums
    29
    Uploaded media
    353
    Embedded media
    1
    Comments
    25
    Disk usage
    982.4 MB