The R6 III specs keep getting better and better! I have a feeling this is going to blow away the Sony A7V this year. It’s Canon’s turn to shine.

SvO2 said:

Tbh I hardly notice the difference between the EVFs on my r6ii and r5ii. I’ve never tried an r8 to compare

Click to expand...

Agreed; in this moment I have R6 and RP (and I had R, R10 and R100) and I can't find the difference during shooting, they all look great.

The only advantage of the R6 compared to previous R and RP (and that's something I'm happy to pay for, because it's game changing) is that it doesn't show the captured picture, unless you pull the camera out of your eyes and look at the picture in the rear display, like you would feel when using an OVF., while if you have the review active, R and RP will show picture and/or blackout right in the EVF, so with those I have to keep review off.

SvO2 said:

Tbh I hardly notice the difference between the EVFs on my r6ii and r5ii. I’ve never tried an r8 to compare

Click to expand...

As I wrote, this is my point of view, knowing that some/many could disagree, and could be right to do so.
Yet, to me, the difference between R6 II and R5 II is absolutely relevant.
I can also confirm what @EricN wrote about the RP, manual focusing can be a chore with it.

Exploreshootshare said:

I don´t like the overly sharp Sigmas...

Click to expand...

Wide open, the Sigma EF 50 Art isn't that sharp, honestly. It's excellent by 10 year old standards (it was released in 2014), but today's lenses are as sharp at 1.2 or 1.4 as the Sigma is stopped down to f/4.

Exploreshootshare said:

Why is the R8´s EVF "horrible"? I only tested in a camera store, but it seemed fine to me. Is 2.36 m dots such a setback?

Click to expand...

I don’t find it horrible, it's usable. It's lower resolution, but also a slightly smaller display. It's not smaller to the point of having the same pixel density, but being smaller certainly helps reducing pixelation.

I don't use manual focus, and I don't own manual focusing lenses.

I find the image quality on 3,68MP EVFs to be generally good/very good, and excellent on the 5,76MP models. Beyond that resolution, I can't tell the difference.

Something Canon really NEEDS to address are the huge rubbers. I have to use all my cameras with VF Display Format set to 2, because I can't see corner to corner with glasses, if using the entire screen. It's easier on the RP/R8 because they have smaller displays and rubbers, but on the R6 and above it just doesn't work.
Last week I tried the Leica Q3 and the new M EV1. Those cameras barely have any rubber, I could see corner to corner, easily, to the point I'm considering buying a replacement rubber for the R6 just to cut it.

Stig Nygaard said:

I think it is to be expected with the MP increase.
For comparision, the 45MP EOS R5 Mark II has a maximum native ISO of 51.200.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I chose the R6 MKII over the R5, precisely because of the higher ISO range. Sad if Canon prioritizes MP over high ISO quality on the R6 MKIII...

Stig Nygaard said:

For comparision, the 45MP EOS R5 Mark II has a maximum native ISO of 51.200.

Click to expand...

ISO range voor R5 Mark II

ImageStream said:

You state that the expected Max ISO of the R6 Mark III is 64,000. Yet, isn't that a downgrade? The Max native ISO of the Mark II is 102,400.

Click to expand...

I think it is to be expected with the MP increase.
For comparision, the 45MP EOS R5 Mark II has a maximum native ISO of 51.200.

Del Paso said:

I've once tested a friend's R8's EVF, and didn't like it at all. Honestly, I also hated the EOS R for its 3,7 m. dots. The same for the R6 II, though much better than both R8 and R. High contrast situations aren't welI mastered by low definition EVFs. But this just a matter of very personal preferences!
For me, like in film times, an excellent viewfinder is of the highest importance. The R5 II's EVF mostly meets my demands, the R1 (don't own it!) even more.

Click to expand...

RP has the same 2.36 and it's defenitly easy for to make mistakes with manual focus and exposure that I wouldn't have with R5. It is nice to worry less about theft

Philnick said:

I agree that Canon has always sidelined its APS-C models, trying to force users to go full frame - or at least buy full-frame lenses - by not making fast -S glass. (The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 was a very popular exception, and my main lens before going mirrorless.) That's where the Sigma RF-S lenses come in. Their 10-18mm f/2.8 has the wide end covered, and their others make the R7 quite competitive, giving it parity with the Sony, Fujifilm and Leica APS-C models, which have had the same lenses for a few years, where they're very popular. Nikon's limiting IBIS to their full-frame models puts them that much further behind Canon, since the R7's IBIS lets it stabilize small and light unstabilized APS-C lenses.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that 17-55 was nice. I used the 17-40L on my 10D and kept it through, I think, my 40D. It was a pretty sharp lens on a crop body, and it was available before the EF-S lenses were developed. It was the only very good lens that went wide enough before the EF-S lenses came out, and even after, until the 17-55.

Once I tasted the 5D, my wide ventures were mostly full frame. Right now, I have the RF 14-35 f/4 which works pretty well as a wide angle on the R7. Not fast enough for low-light work or extreme subject isolation, but a very good lens that gives me some architectural options if I'm out with the R7. I'd say though, the 100-500 sits on my R7 90% of the time.

Tbh I hardly notice the difference between the EVFs on my r6ii and r5ii. I’ve never tried an r8 to compare

Exploreshootshare said:

I liked the R´s EVF. Only the blackout in high-speed shooting is/ was a problem. The R5 on paper has a better EVF, but I never really noticed that difference. The R5 also has a blackout phase, but at least it's shorter than the R´s. I really like the EVF of the R5mkii, it is really beautiful. But, the big EVF hump makes the camera even bulkier.

Why is the R8´s EVF "horrible"? I only tested in a camera store, but it seemed fine to me. Is 2.36 m dots such a setback?

Click to expand...

I've once tested a friend's R8's EVF, and didn't like it at all. Honestly, I also hated the EOS R for its 3,7 m. dots. The same for the R6 II, though much better than both R8 and R. High contrast situations aren't welI mastered by low definition EVFs. But this just a matter of very personal preferences!
For me, like in film times, an excellent viewfinder is of the highest importance. The R5 II's EVF mostly meets my demands, the R1 (don't own it!) even more.

P-visie said:

Next time when you want to shoot: use your camera.

Click to expand...

It's what I'm actually doing: I don't own a gun!I have 3 cameras and a cell-phone, only the last one is good for fast shooting to my face...

Noreaster said:

I was never a fan. even though it was very popular.

Click to expand...

I had to watch it with my daughter: at that time it was kind of a ritual. Nice memories not only because the interaction with my daughter: I also was much younger !

Tom R5R7 said:

I would take interest in that Sigma 17-40 myself if I didn't have an R5 also - it sounds like a great lens for low light situations like receptions, concerts, events, or just people photography during night life activity. I tend to go full frame when I'm going wide-normal, and would use it for most "people" photography. I tend to use my own R7 for birding and wildlife.

She already has a copy of the 18-135 EF USM lens and adapter on its way, and based on her happiness with her Nikon 18-140, I think she'll be happy with this. It's an all in one zoom, and certainly not competition for an L lens, but it's a much more substantial build quality level than the 18-150. Optically, I think it looks similar based on The-Digital-Picture's web comparison tool.

I kind of wish that Canon had made a bit more investment into the RF-S lens lineup. They want to relegate the crop bodies to the toy department and push everyone into full frame, it seems. They could at least bring a couple of the EF-M lenses over, like that 32 mm f/1.4 and one of the 15-xx lenses. 15 is a nice wide angle start for a normal-range zoom on a crop body.

Click to expand...

I agree that Canon has always sidelined its APS-C models, trying to force ambitious users to go full frame - or at least buy full-frame lenses - by not making fast -S glass. (The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 was a very popular exception, and my main lens before going mirrorless.) That's where the Sigma RF-S lenses come in. Their 10-18mm f/2.8 has the wide end covered, and their others make the R7 quite competitive, giving it parity with the Sony, Fujifilm and Leica APS-C models, which have had the same lenses for a few years, where they're very popular. Nikon's limiting IBIS to their full-frame models puts them that much further behind Canon, since the R7's IBIS lets it stabilize small and light unstabilized APS-C lenses.

Philnick said:

Have her get the Sigma RF-S 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art. It's a standard zoom (equivalent focal lengths 29-64mm) more than a stop faster than most of the full-frame models, and is substantial enough, being comparable in size and weight to a full-frame standard zoom, to give her the heft she wants, in what's Sigma's equivalent to an L lens.

It doesn't have the telephoto reach, true, but she can get decent fast lenses for that - look at my signature for a list. The problem with Canon's EF-S and RF-S lenses is that they don't give them wide enough apertures to overcome the crop sensor's low light issues - the Sigmas and Canon's full-frame lenses do. I don't use any lens slower than f/2.8 except for the telextended 448mm f/4 combo resulting from the 200mm f/2.8L + 1.4 telextender.

Click to expand...

I would take interest in that Sigma 17-40 myself if I didn't have an R5 also - it sounds like a great lens for low light situations like receptions, concerts, events, or just people photography during night life activity. I tend to go full frame when I'm going wide-normal, and would use it for most "people" photography. I tend to use my own R7 for birding and wildlife.

She already has a copy of the 18-135 EF USM lens and adapter on its way, and based on her happiness with her Nikon 18-140, I think she'll be happy with this. It's an all in one zoom, and certainly not competition for an L lens, but it's a much more substantial build quality level than the 18-150. Optically, I think it looks similar based on The-Digital-Picture's web comparison tool.

I kind of wish that Canon had made a bit more investment into the RF-S lens lineup. They want to relegate the crop bodies to the toy department and push everyone into full frame, it seems. They could at least bring a couple of the EF-M lenses over, like that 32 mm f/1.4 and one of the 15-xx lenses. 15 is a nice wide angle start for a normal-range zoom on a crop body.

Have her get the Sigma RF-S 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art. It's a standard zoom (equivalent focal lengths 29-64mm) more than a stop faster than most of the full-frame models, and is substantial enough, being comparable in size and weight to a full-frame standard zoom, to give her the heft she wants, in what's Sigma's equivalent to an L lens.

It doesn't have the telephoto reach, true, but she can get decent fast lenses for that - look at my signature for a list. The problem with Canon's EF-S and RF-S lenses is that they don't give them wide enough apertures to overcome the crop sensor's low light issues - the Sigmas and Canon's full-frame lenses do. I don't use any lens slower than f/2.8 except for the telextended 448mm f/4 combo resulting from the 200mm f/2.8L + 1.4 telextender.

Del Paso said:

There's also the R8's "horrible" EVF, compared to the R6's. I could never get used to the R's (3,69 million dots).

Click to expand...

I liked the R´s EVF. Only the blackout in high-speed shooting is/ was a problem. The R5 on paper has a better EVF, but I never really noticed that difference. The R5 also has a blackout phase, but at least it's shorter than the R´s. I really like the EVF of the R5mkii, it is really beautiful. But, the big EVF hump makes the camera even bulkier.

Del Paso said:

The R 8 has only 2,36 million dots...Though I know many wouldn't care, a good EVF is essential for me.

Click to expand...

Why is the R8´s EVF "horrible"? I only tested in a camera store, but it seemed fine to me. Is 2.36 m dots such a setback?

Del Paso said:

There's also the R8's "horrible" EVF, compared to the R6's. I could never get used to the R's (3,69 million dots). The R 8 has only 2,36 million dots...
Though I know many wouldn't care, a good EVF is essential for me.

Click to expand...

I'm still used to the optical viewfinder on APSC DSLRs where I couldn't see almost anything so the R was a huge upgrade to me Yes the EVF on the R8/R6 is one of the little things. Not a deal breaker but it makes the decision (to buy the R6) easier. It was one of the reasons when I was deciding between the 60D and 700D. The 60D had bigger battery, top LCD and bigger viewfinder. It won over the better sensor at the 700D.

ISv said:

No reason: the Great Blue is not a natural inhabitant of Japan and as I know it's not recorded even as a vagrant. I survived so far !

Click to expand...

Next time when you want to shoot: use your camera.

AlanF said:

You didn't shoot yourself, I guess.

Click to expand...

No reason: the Great Blue is not a natural inhabitant of Japan and as I know it's not recorded even as a vagrant. I survived so far !

Tomba said:

Yes, the Sigma is sharper, but I liked the pictures I took with the Canon better. That's why I decided to let the Sigma go.

Click to expand...

I don´t like the overly sharp Sigmas... sometimes it doesn't look like separation in the image, but like someone photoshopped a person into a landscape pic. I think in Germany they called the "sticker look". That's why I sold my Sigma portrait lens rather quickly.

Tomba said:

Yes, I wouldn't buy the EF 50mm 1.2 L new for 1.699€ in the Canon online shop.

Click to expand...

Nope, I wouldn't either. It is sometimes funny how the canon online stores keep very high prices when one get buy the lens for 50-60% less. I don't really get why they do that and how buys those lenses.

Walrus said:

People like to brag L lenses, even when the lens sucks...it's just "I have a thicker wallet then yours"; you can afford it, and you want people to know you can. Some thinks buying third party lenses makes them "poor", but it's ok, as they swap lenses very easily at any new release, so in a short time they flood the used market with many pro lenses at bargain prices for people really needing them to buy. I actually appreciate that

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I did.
After buying the R6 in 2020, I replaced a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art that I used with my 5DIII with a used Canon EF 50mm 1.2 L for 650€.
Yes, the Sigma is sharper, but I liked the pictures I took with the Canon better. That's why I decided to let the Sigma go.
Yes, I wouldn't buy the EF 50mm 1.2 L new for 1.699€ in the Canon online shop. However, if it were defective, I would buy it again at the used price of €650 if I didn't have the money for a RF 50mm 1.4 VCM.