Canon EOS R6 Mark III & RF 45 F1.2 STM November 6

[Exploreshootshare]

Why would you, sell your Audi R8 just because there's a new A3 on the block? The 50/1.4 VCM is superior in IQ, AF, build quality, weather sealing, VCM feautre, etc. Just tell me why!? Is it too heavy for you? Do you need the 1.2 so bad?

Staying with your metaphor: I was looking for a A4, but it is not available. I gave the A1 a try, I disliked it. If the A3 works, I'd gladly save the money, sell the A8 and get a ton of accessories along with the car.

I wanted a decent/ good 50mm for family shots. The 1.8 doesn't cut it and the F1.2 L is too big (and maybe too costly). So, I opted for the vcm lens although it was a lot of money. I like this lens very much, but if the new lens performs - even with some caveats - I consider switching simply from a financial POV. I can make do with STM motors, I use the 35mm and 85mm STMs as well. That said, I´d give it careful consideration. If the VCM has major upsides, I'll stick with it.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Genuine question, couldn't you just rescale your R5 photos to 30MP and get the same result?

I honestly don't know the answer to that. I thought if the lenses, e.g. the 35mm F1.8 does look noticeably softer on the R5, resolve softer in the original image, than it would also show if I just rescale it. I could try it, but rescaling all images sounds like a lot of work. Atm, I saving up/ looking for a good deal on a R8. It would be my light travel/ back up/ second camera body whenever needed.

 

[Walrus]

Why would you, sell your Audi R8 just because there's a new A3 on the block? The 50/1.4 VCM is superior in IQ, AF, build quality, weather sealing, VCM feautre, etc. Just tell me why!? Is it too heavy for you? Do you need the 1.2 so bad?

The Audi R8 is the f1.2 L
The 1.4 VCM is an A8 with a 3.0 TDI engine
The 45 1.2 STM is a S3 with a 2.0 Turbo
The 1.8 STM is a A1 with 1.4 TDI

If the A1 doesn't cut it, and the R8 is too expensive, I'd rather have a faster and lighter S3, with less bells and whistles, rather then a bigger and nicer but clunkier A8 that is even slightly slower then the S3

 

[m4ndr4ke]

The Audi R8 is the f1.2 L
The 1.4 VCM is an A8 with a 3.0 TDI engine
The 45 1.2 STM is a S3 with a 2.0 Turbo
The 1.8 STM is a A1 with 1.4 TDI

If the A1 doesn't cut it, and the R8 is too expensive, I'd rather have a faster and lighter S3, with less bells and whistles, rather then a bigger and nicer but clunkier A8 that is even slightly slower then the S3

Yeah I think you should really lower your expectations

The new 45mm is a BMW 116 with extras
The 50mm f/1.8 is a Renault Clio, it even has the typical french car build quality

What are cheap chinese lenses then, the bad ones, you’d ask? Well those are just Lada…

Toy lenses like the Oreo lens are two cylinders Aixam

 

[exkeks]

The RF 45mm f/1.2 STM may actually launch at €499. At least the contradiction is in the right direction.

Are there any infos on availability yet? I'm gonna shoot a wedding on 22nd November and wonder if I might have the lens at hand then.

 

[AdamBotond]

Being an original R6 user since its release and skipping the R6II completely, I must admit the spec sheet of R6III is very tempting. It makes my long lasting yearning for an R3 obsolete at this point. Looking forward to see how the mk III is going to perform in low light stills and video. Having 32 MP and assuming that its going to oversample in 4K60p mode, it should give more details in video than the R1, R3, R5. My reason to not to go with R5 II was the lower quality of 4K60 and the low light capabilities.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Being an original R6 user since its release and skipping the R6II completely, I must admit the spec sheet of R6III is very tempting. It makes my long lasting yearning for an R3 obsolete at this point. Looking forward to see how the mk III is going to perform in low light stills and video. Having 32 MP and assuming that its going to oversample in 4K60p mode, it should give more details in video than the R1, R3, R5. My reason to not to go with R5 II was the lower quality of 4K60 and the low light capabilities.

Ahhh finally, a post from somebody who seems to be from the intended target group Canon has in mind. Although you stated nothing mind-blowing, it is really refreshing to read that see a lot of upside in this camera and are looking forward to it! Hope you´ll like the camera and get to enjoy it

 

[scyrene]

I honestly don't know the answer to that. I thought if the lenses, e.g. the 35mm F1.8 does look noticeably softer on the R5, resolve softer in the original image, than it would also show if I just rescale it. I could try it, but rescaling all images sounds like a lot of work. Atm, I saving up/ looking for a good deal on a R8. It would be my light travel/ back up/ second camera body whenever needed.

Higher resolution sensors can reveal lens flaws more clearly when viewed 100%. But a higher resolution sensor cannot resolve less detail with the same lens than a lower resolution sensor at the image level (when all other shooting parameters are equal). And if you downscale from a higher MP sensor to match the lower one, the images will be virtually identical - the higher resolution sensor should always be at least as good, and maybe better, as pixel-level noise will be finer. Technically-minded forum users have been explaining these things for many years (I'm simply paraphrasing them).

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Higher resolution sensors can reveal lens flaws more clearly when viewed 100%. But a higher resolution sensor cannot resolve less detail with the same lens than a lower resolution sensor at the image level (when all other shooting parameters are equal). And if you downscale from a higher MP sensor to match the lower one, the images will be virtually identical - the higher resolution sensor should always be at least as good, and maybe better, as pixel-level noise will be finer. Technically-minded forum users have been explaining these things for many years (I'm simply paraphrasing them).

Thx for the explanation. I´ve never given this any thought before and I haven't read up about it. I will try it next week.

 

[roby17269]

Higher resolution sensors can reveal lens flaws more clearly when viewed 100%. But a higher resolution sensor cannot resolve less detail with the same lens than a lower resolution sensor at the image level (when all other shooting parameters are equal). And if you downscale from a higher MP sensor to match the lower one, the images will be virtually identical - the higher resolution sensor should always be at least as good, and maybe better, as pixel-level noise will be finer. Technically-minded forum users have been explaining these things for many years (I'm simply paraphrasing them).

You are correct but a lot of people still do not get it...
There are 3 objective downsides to high resolution:

1. you have to handle bigger files -> less images per card, ingesting in LR (e.g.) takes longer, etc.
2. all else being equal, higher res will result in slower max FPS and shorter buffer duration
3. at pixel level, more noise

All the rest is old obsolete lore

 

[snapshot]

Not at all, the colors of the R have a Sony-style green hue. Great for nature, but as a portrait photographer, I hated it. It was a pain in the A to get decent skin tones out of this camera, even with fiddling in Lightroom. I loved everything else about the EOS R but that's the main reason I switched to the R5. Which is much closer to the absolutely perfect tones of a Hassy X1D / GFX 50S (notice how with these cameras the skintones look warm, but the hair/beard does not). With the R5 Canon went back to the same recipe that already worked for the older 5D series DSLRs - slightly warm Kodak colors. And I hope the R6 Mark III will also keep these colors.

i wonder if my screen shot of the same image will look similar...


i dont see the green tint

i used:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eosr&attr13_2=canon_eosr5&attr13_3=canon_eosr5ii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_3=1&attr171_3=3&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.8799424874191232&y=-0.2127888232133262

 

[m4ndr4ke]

i wonder if my screen shot of the same image will look similar...

The difference on the EOS R is there, you're just too zoomed-in.
Change image size to "Print"

To me, none of the four is neutral, but I'll take magenta over green.

You don't seem to be using the same file though. His comparison jpeg on the EOS R is 11MB, while yours is 13,3MB

 

[snapshot]

The difference on the EOS R is there, you're just too zoomed-in.
Change image size to "Print"

To me, none of the four is neutral, but I'll take magenta over green.

You don't seem to be using the same file though. His comparison jpeg on the EOS R is 11MB, while yours is 13,3MB

i used the raw file rather than jpg, not sure if that matters. i tried print size. i still am not seeing a tint like the first post, but i think the site should do a better job equalizing exposure as i think the R picture is darker.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

i used the raw file rather than jpg

Sorry, I missed that.

You're right, on a sRGB colour managed browser I don't get as much green as there is in his screenshot, which has a built-in sRGB profile.

I get a lot more magenta on the R5 that's next to it, though, so my image is overall leaning more towards magenta, but I can still see greener tones on the R.

The major difference in his screenshot could be file compression though.

 

[ctk]

Not at all, the colors of the R have a Sony-style green hue. Great for nature, but as a portrait photographer, I hated it. It was a pain in the A to get decent skin tones out of this camera, even with fiddling in Lightroom. I loved everything else about the EOS R but that's the main reason I switched to the R5. Which is much closer to the absolutely perfect tones of a Hassy X1D / GFX 50S (notice how with these cameras the skintones look warm, but the hair/beard does not). With the R5 Canon went back to the same recipe that already worked for the older 5D series DSLRs - slightly warm Kodak colors. And I hope the R6 Mark III will also keep these colors.

View attachment 226576

Very interesting. I found the R's color to be more bluish. My context at the time was Sony's 2nd gen colors, which were just universally awful, so the R was a huge upgrade.

Those colors plus the way the 35 1.8 rendered made for some amazing shots.

 

[Uneternal]

i dont see the green tint

You're just too zoomed in, change to print view. Even in the RAW the camera leans slightly towards green. Navigate to the Asian lady and look at her nose or her neck.
It's a fact. If you don't believe it, rent an R5/R6, try them side by side in the real world and you'll see the difference.

 

[snapshot]

You're just too zoomed in, change to print view. Even in the RAW the camera leans slightly towards green. Navigate to the Asian lady and look at her nose or her neck.
It's a fact. If you don't believe it, rent an R5/R6, try them side by side in the real world and you'll see the difference.

i have access to the 4 cameras in my comparison. not sure how to proceed with a color test through. i suppose a picture taken in a clear sky with noonish sun shoot a raw through an ef 70-200 f/2.8 at 100 iso,, some same shutter speed and maybe f/4? may still have differences in exposure?

 

[m4ndr4ke]

may still have differences in exposure?

Yes, absolutely, that’s normal

 

[reisi007]

ISO is relative and not absolute. So even if you used the same lens (different lenses of the same aperture do have different light transmission) there is so much variability...

And I am not even talking about the environment....

 

[Tom R5R7]

I love my EF 50mm f/1.4 for the unique "look" and this RF 45mm f/1.2 should be a really fun lens tooView attachment 226554View attachment 226555View attachment 226556

The 50/1.4 was my 50 for a good while. I've had the cheap 1.8 with the plastic mount, and I have the EF 50/1.2L now (and it works well on the R series, though it understandably is not as good as that RF 50/1.2L). Also have an RF 50/1.8 for some reason. Given that I rarely use any of my 50s, and when I do, it's the big ol' L, I have to wonder why I have it. I guess the inner gear head calls out every now and then.

I sold my 1.4 last year in an effort to thin down the herd of lenses in my collection. But it was a workhorse, warts and all.