AlanF said:

There can be effects from other factors like the anti-alias filter or the nature of recording of the signals, but all else being equal, pixel size should cancel out in many features.

Click to expand...

All else is rarely equal though

DocInfoSci said:

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 they're not there yet. Must just be making the video and cropping people happy.

Click to expand...

I would not put much stock on those limits... there's no strong correlation between max ISO and noise quality at comparable lower ISO values. I remember I had the 1D X and max ISO was impressive on paper as well as unusable in reality. And if max ISO limits you, there is always post processing

DocInfoSci said:

True, true. But my glass has lasted a good long time. I'd much rather spend money on glass than camera bodies.

Click to expand...

So true - but still a material expenditure if you are cash-constrained

DocInfoSci said:

In fact, in terms of camera bodies, I'd way rather have Canon take an Apple (or insert favourite PC purveyor) approach along the lines of:

• R1/3 series
  • Sets the body to very robust
  • Sets the SLA to very high, quick
  • Viewfinder premium options, 5.x, 9.x dpi
  • Rear viewer premium options, 2k
  • Sensor premium options, BSI 24MP, BSI 32MP, etc.
• R6 series
  • Sets the body to moderately robust
  • Sets the SLA to consumer
  • Viewfinder premium options, 3.x, 5.x dpi
  • Rear viewer premium options, 1.6k, 2k
  • Sensor moderate options, 24MP high ISO, 32MP low ISO
• R5, R8, etc. series accordingly

So purchasing becomes the game of pick a body / SLA tier and then choose mix/match good, better, best within the constraints

Click to expand...

TBH I don't see Canon doing anything substantially different. Personally I do not see the R6 III as a "low ISO body".
But in the end the long term trend seems to be more megapixels. Blame Sony or blame lazy sales people or blame gullible customers... but eventually the low mp count will move upward of 24

DocInfoSci said:

Probably not so different outside of this forum, but within it seems so! But, I love the engagement. It would be cool for CanonRumors to organize group gatherings, similar to PhotoPills -- but maybe to Canon factories haha!

Click to expand...

Never heard of PhotoPills but I was active on meetup.com
But yes, spirited but civil discussions are always great

Walrus said:

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 around 800/1000€ vs 400€

Click to expand...

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 a month you could buy a new one for 1.199 €...). On Kleinanzeigen the difference isn't that bad. RP starts is 550-690€, R8 is 800-1000 € as you said.

Imo, it really comes down to your wants/ needs considering the difference. For me, newer generation and better AF, 3 FPS vs. 40 FPS, older sensor and no animal or vehicle detect AF. Plus, on EOS R and RP eye detect wasn't very reliable. I've shot on EOS R and RP, the AF compared to the R5 is night and day and the R8 has even better AF. So, yes, I'll gladly pay the difference.

Walrus said:

I'm REALLY into that lens, yes, but I'm not going from a closed to a semi-calosed system, it's like going from jail to home arrest; if I've to dump Canon after 26 years, I'm doing it for total freedom, so Sony only at the moment, but their bodies still doesn't convince me up to the breaking point.

Click to expand...

Thats a nice metaphor The L-mount also offers total freedom imo, there are many, many choices although you can't access Sony lenses.

Walrus said:

Having said that, I confirm that, of course IMHO, Z5's 500€ for a FF ML with 24mpx from a major manufacturer, two card slots and a Joystick, and a partially open mount, it's the best deal on the used market, it's just missing a third wheel to be comparable to a R6 that goes for almost twice the price while having a closed mount. But it's still house arrest, otherwise I would have taken it in very serious consideration.

Click to expand...

I´d love for the R8ii to have a joystick and/ or a scroll wheel. That'd be absolutely great!

Walrus said:

EDIT: R8's problem it's costing same as R6; at the same price, there's no competion imho, small battery, one slot, no third wheel, no joystick, no battery grip. There's not a single R8's spec I would value better then R6's apart from resolution, which is just a minuscule improvement against a ton of missing functions.

Click to expand...

That´s all true about the R6/ R8 comparison. But there is another truth: R8 wins triumphantly when it comes to weight and size.
When you're all about weight, weight, weight again, R8 is the logical choice. Also consider the compact size. Given the right lens, R8 is so compact it is pocketable. Better AF and 40 FPS (which I don't need) are also advantages of the R8. Given my R5 weighs 738 gr and the R6 is 675gr, the 481 gr looks like a real winner! On family trips I'll be carrying a bunch of other stuff next year, so I'll save as much weight and space as I can with camera gear. So, R8 is the obvious and only choice.

roby17269 said:

but the jump 20 -> 24 is really minute, almost invisible

Click to expand...

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 they're not there yet. Must just be making the video and cropping people happy.

roby17269 said:

I see it in a different way: at high ISO I can downsize R5 images to look the same as images from 24 or lower MP FF cameras... at low ISO the R5 delivers more detail than the lower res cameras can achieve.
Of course my use case is different as I often shoot with controlled light.

Click to expand...

Makes sense, and I agree with strobes the game changes. I'd love me an R5 for my strobe work. But for the field a nice 1d, R6 I/II, or R3 with scene appropriate glass is pretty sweet.

roby17269 said:

I do know since I have big pixels in my P1 IQ1-80

Click to expand...

roby17269 said:

I was just commenting that on one side you complained that the fast / low mp cameras are going up in price and then you write that you can make do with low mp thanks to glass... which is not cheap.

Click to expand...

True, true. But my glass has lasted a good long time. I'd much rather spend money on glass than camera bodies.

In fact, in terms of camera bodies, I'd way rather have Canon take an Apple (or insert favourite PC purveyor) approach along the lines of:

• R1/3 series
  • Sets the body to very robust
  • Sets the SLA to very high, quick
  • Viewfinder premium options, 5.x, 9.x dpi
  • Rear viewer premium options, 2k
  • Sensor premium options, BSI 24MP, BSI 32MP, etc.
• R6 series
  • Sets the body to moderately robust
  • Sets the SLA to consumer
  • Viewfinder premium options, 3.x, 5.x dpi
  • Rear viewer premium options, 1.6k, 2k
  • Sensor moderate options, 24MP high ISO, 32MP low ISO
• R5, R8, etc. series accordingly

So purchasing becomes the game of pick a body / SLA tier and then choose mix/match good, better, best within the constraints

roby17269 said:

Well clearly our use cases are different so I will keep raising the banner of high mp

Click to expand...

Probably not so different outside of this forum, but within it seems so! But, I love the engagement. It would be cool for CanonRumors to organize group gatherings, similar to PhotoPills -- but maybe to Canon factories haha!

DocInfoSci said:

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 -- and in my case fur, hair, wrinkles matter as a pleasant aesthetic to me in many use cases.

Improvements to sensor tech seem to cycle between increasing pixel counts and then pixel qualities. The R6 -> R6 II update exemplifies this: The R6 II improved the pixel quality, so the additional pixels did not reduce the effective sensitivity capability.

Click to expand...

but the jump 20 -> 24 is really minute, almost invisible

DocInfoSci said:

I argue though that the noise does matter... eventually. I compared the R5 and R6 at the outset and went with the R6 because making a reduction in pixels to achieve the same noise defeated the point of the extra pixels to begin with, which meant the R6 was more relevant to my use case. And, yeah, the 1D was also an option in this regard but the R6 ticked the box for mirrorless, IBIS, etc. R6 -> R5? Real world noticeable to me pixel for pixel. R6 -> R6 II? Not really. R6 -> R6 III? I'm at the edge of my seat wondering whether the much newer tech overcomes the ISO noise pixel for pixel.

Click to expand...

I see it in a different way: at high ISO I can downsize R5 images to look the same as images from 24 or lower MP FF cameras... at low ISO the R5 delivers more detail than the lower res cameras can achieve.
Of course my use case is different as I often shoot with controlled light.

DocInfoSci said:

I thought I had made it clear that I was discussing pixels and not resolution, but... I'm talking about pixels.

I find that matching the glass to the scene makes whatever quantity of pixels appropriate for that combination. 20MP vs 45MP will both achieve a good effect with the appropriate mm lens applied to each, all other factors being equal.

I also find that people tend to want more pixels for cropping to compensate for the lack of glass options. Maybe because lenses are expensive, or maybe the camera is underwater. Either way, the priority is cropping and not quality, even though quality is a come-along factor because more pixels leaves a larger final image.

If we remove the need for cropping -- such as by aligning glass to the sensor and scene -- then one can then focus on quality of pixels over quantity of pixels -- better light gathering wells, lower diffraction penalty, etc. Generations of technology being the same or equivalent, bigger pixels are nicer. Or medium format would have choked out years ago.

Click to expand...

I do know since I have big pixels in my P1 IQ1-80
I was just commenting that on one side you complained that the fast / low mp cameras are going up in price and then you write that you can make do with low mp thanks to glass... which is not cheap.

DocInfoSci said:

Now if you need 8, 7, or 6K video then it is what it is -- pixel counts. But for good photos that go on walls or 4K video that goes on most modern TVs, then I'd much rather have low light, low diffraction penalty, etc. over those extra pixels any day of the week. If I can purchase that capability at R6 prices instead of R1/3 prices then so much the better!

Click to expand...

Well clearly our use cases are different so I will keep raising the banner of high mp

DocInfoSci said:

Hmm. That hasn't been a experience in the real word, so other factors might be at play - such as how well the sub-pixels with smears get re-averaged together into one. But I hear what you're saying.

Click to expand...

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 signals, but all else being equal, pixel size should cancel out in many features.

AlanF said:

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 poster on a wall or looked at the same size on a 4K screen, then the S/N, light-gathering well depth for the sensor, diffraction penalty etc are independent of the megapixel count of the sensor. That is basic, fundamental physics. Think about it this way. If you divide a large pixel up into 4 smaller ones, then each smaller one will have 1/4 of the area resulting in 1/4 of the well depth, 1/4 of the number of photons , and the diffraction effects will be spread over 4 pixels. But, when you look at the image at the same size, then 4 pixels will add up together in the same space in the image to the same area as the single large one and their 4 well depths will add up to the same as well as the number of photons hitting all 4 doing the same. The diffraction will be spread over the same area. Similarly, if there is any camera shake, it will be spread over the same area in the image. The difference is that the higher megapixel sensor may pick out more detail.

Click to expand...

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 get re-averaged together into one. But I hear what you're saying.

Exploreshootshare said:

I´d disagree because the RP has older generation AF, only 3 FPS, older sensor and no animal or vehicle detect AF. Considering these points, the value for money isn't as good as the R8. The RP really feels like it is two generations older than the R8. One can argue it is just one generation older because it is the successor of the RP, but it came out in 2022 alongside the R6ii, so it is actually two generations imo.

If you're really into this lens, go get the Z5. If the Tamron lives on it, great I'm hoping for a Canon 70-135mm F2 (or similar) zoom one day, but if we don't get somewhere along the next five - seven years (yes, that's really my intent) I might have to go the dark side for one lens (to shoot, not to rule them all).

Click to expand...

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 around 800/1000€ vs 400€

I'm REALLY into that lens, yes, but I'm not going from a closed to a semi-closed system, it's like going from jail to home arrest; if I've to dump Canon after 26 years, I'm doing it for total freedom, so Sony only at the moment, but their bodies still doesn't convince me up to the breaking point.
Having said that, I confirm that, of course IMHO, Z5's 500€ for a FF ML with 24mpx from a major manufacturer, two card slots and a Joystick, and a partially open mount, it's the best deal on the used market, it's just missing a third wheel to be comparable to a R6 that goes for almost twice the price while having a closed mount. But it's still house arrest, otherwise I would have taken it in very serious consideration.

EDIT: R8's problem it's costing same as R6; at the same price, there's no competion imho, small battery, one slot, no third wheel, no joystick, no battery grip. There's not a single R8's spec I would value better then R6's apart from resolution, which is just a minuscule improvement against a ton of missing functions.

DocInfoSci said:

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 -- and in my case fur, hair, wrinkles matter as a pleasant aesthetic to me in many use cases.

Improvements to sensor tech seem to cycle between increasing pixel counts and then pixel qualities. The R6 -> R6 II update exemplifies this: The R6 II improved the pixel quality, so the additional pixels did not reduce the effective sensitivity capability.

I argue though that the noise does matter... eventually. I compared the R5 and R6 at the outset and went with the R6 because making a reduction in pixels to achieve the same noise defeated the point of the extra pixels to begin with, which meant the R6 was more relevant to my use case. And, yeah, the 1D was also an option in this regard but the R6 ticked the box for mirrorless, IBIS, etc. R6 -> R5? Real world noticeable to me pixel for pixel. R6 -> R6 II? Not really. R6 -> R6 III? I'm at the edge of my seat wondering whether the much newer tech overcomes the ISO noise pixel for pixel.


I thought I had made it clear that I was discussing pixels and not resolution, but... I'm talking about pixels.

I find that matching the glass to the scene makes whatever quantity of pixels appropriate for that combination. 20MP vs 45MP will both achieve a good effect with the appropriate mm lens applied to each, all other factors being equal.

I also find that people tend to want more pixels for cropping to compensate for the lack of glass options. Maybe because lenses are expensive, or maybe the camera is underwater. Either way, the priority is cropping and not quality, even though quality is a come-along factor because more pixels leaves a larger final image.

If we remove the need for cropping -- such as by aligning glass to the sensor and scene -- then one can then focus on quality of pixels over quantity of pixels -- better light gathering wells, lower diffraction penalty, etc. Generations of technology being the same or equivalent, bigger pixels are nicer. Or medium format would have choked out years ago.

Now if you need 8, 7, or 6K video then it is what it is -- pixel counts. But for good photos that go on walls or 4K video that goes on most modern TVs, then I'd much rather have low light, low diffraction penalty, etc. over those extra pixels any day of the week. If I can purchase that capability at R6 prices instead of R1/3 prices then so much the better!

Click to expand...

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 poster on a wall or looked at the same size on a 4K screen, then the S/N, light-gathering well depth for the sensor, diffraction penalty etc are independent of the megapixel count of the sensor. That is basic, fundamental physics. Think about it this way. If you divide a large pixel up into 4 smaller ones, then each smaller one will have 1/4 of the area resulting in 1/4 of the well depth, 1/4 of the number of photons , and the diffraction effects will be spread over 4 pixels. But, when you look at the image at the same size, then 4 pixels will add up together in the same space in the image to the same area as the single large one and their 4 well depths will add up to the same as well as the number of photons hitting all 4 doing the same. The diffraction will be spread over the same area. Similarly, if there is any camera shake, it will be spread over the same area in the image. The difference is that the higher megapixel sensor may pick out more detail.

roby17269 said:

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 else being equal.

Click to expand...

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.

roby17269 said:

At pixel level higher resolution means more noise, all else being equal, but that matters for pixel peeping or if you have super fine detail (like hair / fur)

Click to expand...

Yes -- and in my case fur, hair, wrinkles matter as a pleasant aesthetic to me in many use cases.

Improvements to sensor tech seem to cycle between increasing pixel counts and then pixel qualities. The R6 -> R6 II update exemplifies this: The R6 II improved the pixel quality, so the additional pixels did not reduce the effective sensitivity capability.

I argue though that the noise does matter... eventually. I compared the R5 and R6 at the outset and went with the R6 because making a reduction in pixels to achieve the same noise defeated the point of the extra pixels to begin with, which meant the R6 was more relevant to my use case. And, yeah, the 1D was also an option in this regard but the R6 ticked the box for mirrorless, IBIS, etc. R6 -> R5? Real world noticeable to me pixel for pixel. R6 -> R6 II? Not really. R6 -> R6 III? I'm at the edge of my seat wondering whether the much newer tech overcomes the ISO noise pixel for pixel.

roby17269 said:

But I am confused, first you lament that the R6 I/II type of cameras are going away and that function is moving upward in cost to R1/3 level... then you say "low resolution is no biggie, just get longer glass"... and good long glass' price will dwarf whatever camera you attach to it.

Click to expand...

I thought I had made it clear that I was discussing pixels and not resolution, but... I'm talking about pixels.

I find that matching the glass to the scene makes whatever quantity of pixels appropriate for that combination. 20MP vs 45MP will both achieve a good effect with the appropriate mm lens applied to each, all other factors being equal.

I also find that people tend to want more pixels for cropping to compensate for the lack of glass options. Maybe because lenses are expensive, or maybe the camera is underwater. Either way, the priority is cropping and not quality, even though quality is a come-along factor because more pixels leaves a larger final image.

If we remove the need for cropping -- such as by aligning glass to the sensor and scene -- then one can then focus on quality of pixels over quantity of pixels -- better light gathering wells, lower diffraction penalty, etc. Generations of technology being the same or equivalent, bigger pixels are nicer. Or medium format would have choked out years ago.

Now if you need 8, 7, or 6K video then it is what it is -- pixel counts. But for good photos that go on walls or 4K video that goes on most modern TVs, then I'd much rather have low light, low diffraction penalty, etc. over those extra pixels any day of the week. If I can purchase that capability at R6 prices instead of R1/3 prices then so much the better!

Exploreshootshare said:

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 looking at the wrong specs...

Of course, fewer but bigger MP´s gather more light which might give the older generations a slight advantage... but a newer sensor could handle noise better and that would equal the equation.

Click to expand...

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 statistical variation in the small number of photons hitting the sensor. So, when you look at the S/N, it just depends on the area of the sensor you are using - the number of photons increases with size of the area. So, for R, Rii, Riii, the full size sensor will have the same noise. If you look at individual pixels, then the larger the pixel, the better the S/N.

Walrus said:

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€ more

Click to expand...

I´d disagree because the RP has older generation AF, only 3 FPS, older sensor and no animal or vehicle detect AF. Considering these points, the value for money isn't as good as the R8. The RP really feels like it is two generations older than the R8. One can argue it is just one generation older because it is the successor of the RP, but it came out in 2022 alongside the R6ii, so it is actually two generations imo.

Walrus said:

the best balanced cheap FF imho it's the Nikon Z5, offering double card slot and a joystick around 500€ used; if only Sigma (and others) was allowed on Z mount, I would have swapped to a pair of Z5's one or two years ago, and I'm still debating going for it because at least there's Tamron with their beautiful 35-150, which is my most desired lens on the market today.

Click to expand...

If you're really into this lens, go get the Z5. If the Tamron lives on it, great I'm hoping for a Canon 70-135mm F2 (or similar) zoom one day, but if we don't get somewhere along the next five - seven years (yes, that's really my intent) I might have to go the dark side for one lens (to shoot, not to rule them all).

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 looking at the wrong specs...

Of course, fewer but bigger MP´s gather more light which might give the older generations a slight advantage... but a newer sensor could handle noise better and that would equal the equation.

Walrus said:

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€ more, the best balanced cheap FF imho it's the Nikon Z5, offering double card slot and a joystick around 500€ used; if only Sigma (and others) was allowed on Z mount, I would have swapped to a pair of Z5's one or two years ago, and I'm still debating going for it because at least there's Tamron with their beautiful 35-150, which is my most desired lens on the market today.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't hesitate, if you need that lens, go for it!

DocInfoSci said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 else being equal.
At pixel level higher resolution means more noise, all else being equal, but that matters for pixel peeping or if you have super fine detail (like hair / fur)

But I am confused, first you lament that the R6 I/II type of cameras are going away and that function is moving upward in cost to R1/3 level... then you say "low resolution is no biggie, just get longer glass"... and good long glass' price will dwarf whatever camera you attach to it.

DocInfoSci said:

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

Click to expand...

rombe3jr said:

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.

Click to expand...

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€ more, the best balanced cheap FF imho it's the Nikon Z5, offering double card slot and a joystick around 500€ used; if only Sigma (and others) was allowed on Z mount, I would have swapped to a pair of Z5's one or two years ago, and I'm still debating going for it because at least there's Tamron with their beautiful 35-150, which is my most desired lens on the market today.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

roby17269 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Del Paso said:

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

Click to expand...

About 16%

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.

Click to expand...

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

roby17269 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.