Canon EOS R6 Mark III & RF 45 F1.2 STM November 6
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
M
R3/r1 sexies being the exception, the last good looking design was the now classic R5. R62 in comparison was a joke, that I really didn't like.
No real reason to change it since the body sold so well, so good luck there.
R50v form factor is set up well for an m62 replacement, but wow that thing feels super cheap...i was surprised actually. M62 and m50 design still hasnt been beat imho. Great cams.
Upvote
0
I take one of your considerations, and expand it; I see, in general, too much concern of what's considered "pro" and what's not.
I have an R6 and fast glass because I mainly shoot weddings in dark environments, so I need good high iso performance and bright lenses.
But I also occasionally do corporate headshots, this is an example of my work:
If my main and only job was doing volume studio headshots like that, my setup would simply be R100 and RF-S 18-150, the cheapest possible with eye-AF, because I would be shooting iso 100 and f8/f11 all the time, and so no other extra bells and whistles would be needed to achieve the quality I need, and certainly I wouldn't feel any less "pro" then a sport professional working with two or three R1's and tens of thousands of dollars in L glass.
It's not the camera, the DR, the ISO, the widest f-stop, the red ring, that makes you "pro"; what makes you pro is getting money from photography, regardless of what you carry in your photo bag.
So I wouldn't focus on "what is R6 III giving to us non-pro photographer", but simply "what is R6 III giving to me, for what I need to do", and if you feel it doesn't give you what you expect, just don't buy it, look other Canon bodies that fullfill your needs, or look to other manufacturers if they offer you better gear for your passion
Upvote
0
Thanks! I agree with your sentiment. And thanks for sharing some of your work. Very nice!I take one of your considerations, and expand it; I see, in general, too much concern of what's considered "pro" and what's not.
I have an R6 and fast glass because I mainly shoot weddings in dark environments, so I need good high iso performance and bright lenses.
But I also occasionally do corporate headshots, this is an example of my work:
View attachment 226648
If my main and only job was doing volume studio headshots like that, my setup would simply be R100 and RF-S 18-150, the cheapest possible with eye-AF, because I would be shooting iso 100 and f8/f11 all the time, and so no other extra bells and whistles would be needed to achieve the quality I need, and certainly I wouldn't feel any less "pro" then a sport professional working with two or three R1's and tens of thousands of dollars in L glass.
It's not the camera, the DR, the ISO, the widest f-stop, the red ring, that makes you "pro"; what makes you pro is getting money from photography, regardless of what you carry in your photo bag.
So I wouldn't focus on "what is R6 III giving to us non-pro photographer", but simply "what is R6 III giving to me, for what I need to do", and if you feel it doesn't give you what you expect, just don't buy it, look other Canon bodies that fullfill your needs, or look to other manufacturers if they offer you better gear for your passion
And I also take pro to generally mean “one gets paid for work,“ and pro features to me are things that ease getting paid for work. That could be device robustness, reliable service by the vendor, or features less common to the overall range of cameras that can contribute to better outcomes. These all have value. The R6 series falls in the latter for sure.
I don’t get paid for my photography, so in that sense I’m not pro. But I’m very good at it and have done it for a very long time, and in that sense I’m capable of appreciating and consuming features that are less common to the overall line. I’m certainly sensitive enough to feel losses in capability.
That’s a bit of the feeling I get from other people who have echoed similar sentiments on this forum, but who seemed to be on the rare side in terms of voice. I sometimes get the sense that other people dismiss these concerns because they can afford to out spend them using other tiers or have different use cases that don’t expose the potential pain to them. But if we don’t mention our concerns, then Canon can safely assume business as usual. I’m one customer who’s saying I’m not comfortable at this point with their direction for this particular product line—and I don’t think I’m the only one. I’m truly hoping they surprise me in a good way.
Upvote
0
There are a bunch of advantages for stills from AF performance to rolling shutter (for stills like panning fast subjects) to EVF to flash sync using ES etc. "Paper losses" don't necessarily equate to real life issues.
Hybrid video is essential for all new releases even if users don't use it eg me for my R5.
Video features follow stills performance anyway eg if full sensor speed with stills then video at the same speed is the same (slightly cropped from 3:2)
Only a few users will notice the 2/3 stop difference. Those will be critical of this change but Canon believes that the other improvements outweigh that decrease.
Sensor tech hasn't fundamentally changed for some time now - probably since gapless pixel lenses (microlenses) were implemented.
Circuitry has changed from FSI to BSI to stacked so complexity/cost has increased. The next iteration will be to maximise the well size on the front with all additional circuitry on the back.
Canon can release darker lenses due to full sensor AF and much better high ISO performance vs EF/DLSR days.
I think that Canon has done a great job for low end RF glass. RF100-400 as well as the lenses you mention for teles.
Canon is missing some mid level teles like 300/4 500/5.6 which Sony, Nikon and Sigma seem to have good options
Canon has the pointy end well covered except for a RF200-500/4 or 500mm prime.
Canon is missing niche lenses that were in EF eg fisheye zoom, long macro, tilt/shift etc and we can point to gaps that Sony/Sigma have like UWA primes eg 14mm.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Many (including myself) on the forum aren't "pro" by your definition but a lot are prosumers. Whether we are good or not is in the eye of the beholder but you are welcome to look at my flickr page in my signature.
My choice was the R5 because I do a lot of heavy cropping at times as I can't change lenses underwater.
I haven't upgraded to the R5ii because:
- Extra USD1100 cost to modify my underwater housing as well as the incremental cost of the new body
- R5 is working fine although I have found some issues like 12 bit stills when using electronic shutter vs 14 bit for mechanical and inability to modify between 1 and 20fps for ES.
- Slight DR decrease could be an issue as I do milky way and underwater stuff in poor conditions even if I don't go above ISO6400.
14 bit stills, adjustable ES speeds, ES triggering strobes, eye controlled AF (if it works for me), better AF tracking including priority subject would still be an improvement for stills for me sometimes.
Have you considered upgrading from R6 to R5
There has been no evidence that I am aware of that Canon reads the comments in this forum.
Feedback should be sent to Canon via their formal support pages
Upvote
0
I’m starting to think that the R5 or an R3 class is starting to be more my style. I try to balance being pragmatic as I have other life interests as well, but maybe this is also the excuse I’ve been looking forward to justify.Many (including myself) on the forum aren't "pro" by your definition but a lot are prosumers. Whether we are good or not is in the eye of the beholder but you are welcome to look at my flickr page in my signature.
My choice was the R5 because I do a lot of heavy cropping at times as I can't change lenses underwater.
I haven't upgraded to the R5ii because:
- Extra USD1100 cost to modify my underwater housing as well as the incremental cost of the new body
- R5 is working fine although I have found some issues like 12 bit stills when using electronic shutter vs 14 bit for mechanical and inability to modify between 1 and 20fps for ES.
- Slight DR decrease could be an issue as I do milky way and underwater stuff in poor conditions even if I don't go above ISO6400.
14 bit stills, adjustable ES speeds, ES triggering strobes, eye controlled AF (if it works for me), better AF tracking including priority subject would still be an improvement for stills for me sometimes.
Have you considered upgrading from R6 to R5
There has been no evidence that I am aware of that Canon reads the comments in this forum.
Feedback should be sent to Canon via their formal support pages
And I keep hearing that Canon doesn’t review forums like this, but I simply can’t imagine that they aren’t keeping an eye on it in an unofficial way. Imagine one of the few big ticket rumor sites focused on their products covering the pending release of the next generation for one of their most popular camera lines—and not a single Canon engineer or product owner trolling to note the temperature. There are a lot of things that my company doesn’t officially do, but I guarantee you that we quietly keep an eye on things so that we can remain competitive in our industry. Prior customers matter, especially when they’re likely to purchase again.
Upvote
0
I take one of your considerations, and expand it; I see, in general, too much concern of what's considered "pro" and what's not.
I have an R6 and fast glass because I mainly shoot weddings in dark environments, so I need good high iso performance and bright lenses.
But I also occasionally do corporate headshots, this is an example of my work:
View attachment 226648
If my main and only job was doing volume studio headshots like that, my setup would simply be R100 and RF-S 18-150, the cheapest possible with eye-AF, because I would be shooting iso 100 and f8/f11 all the time, and so no other extra bells and whistles would be needed to achieve the quality I need, and certainly I wouldn't feel any less "pro" then a sport professional working with two or three R1's and tens of thousands of dollars in L glass.
It's not the camera, the DR, the ISO, the widest f-stop, the red ring, that makes you "pro"; what makes you pro is getting money from photography, regardless of what you carry in your photo bag.
So I wouldn't focus on "what is R6 III giving to us non-pro photographer", but simply "what is R6 III giving to me, for what I need to do", and if you feel it doesn't give you what you expect, just don't buy it, look other Canon bodies that fullfill your needs, or look to other manufacturers if they offer you better gear for your passion
I wish that
guy was my boss
Upvote
0
The Canon lawyers and marketing may troll somewhat to minimise leaks under NDA!
I would like to believe that their engineers read the forum but we can't assume it or that they would act on it. We tend to be civil and write considered comments though. There is also DPR and Petapixel when they want fanboi criticisms and reviewers of course. Canon would have a much better understanding of their customer's needs that we would have.
Canon did react quickly for the R5's perceived overheating storm-in-a-teacup in 3 video modes even though 8k raw internal had never been done before in a hybrid body and still isn't available from any other hybrid body (not A1 or Z8/Z9). It may have also created the need for the R5c.
For us to ruminate on patents and potential feature sets is great but Canon has locked in their R&D and manufacturing resources a long time before we get a chance to comment or guess why they have some strange strategies.
They killed off the M line when it still seemed profitable but didn't repackage all the decent M lenses to RF for some unknown reason. I get that they went all-in for R mount but they brought back a largely unchanged powershot elph and they still have no issues selling lower end DLSRs.
Clearly Canon's strategy is for hybrid lenses now with a strong focus on Z zooms and VCM primes vs a missing RF35/1.2 or version 2 of existing RF lenses after 7 years or replacement EF niches. Locking out Sigma and Tamron from full frame RF lenses is the current topic du jour with imminent doom for Canon
Upvote
0
So it's not going to be announced until June.
(Being silly. That's the way people in the USA read that date.)
Upvote
0
No, that's not what I'm calling externally focusing lenses. I'm calling externally focusing lenses to those that extend beyond its original dimensions.
There's no need for a stationary element in the front, just look at the RF 50mm f/1.2, for instance. That lens has no protective front element, yet it focuses inside its housing, never extending beyond its length. Canon just needed to add more plastic, enough to cover the movement.
If you know, you know, right?
A guy I used to work for had one that all of the employees of his diesel repair shop (I worked for another of his businesses) used when running errands for the boss. I dropped off/or picked up mechanics in the Peugeot a few times when they would pick up or return vehicles to/from customers.
Upvote
0
Meh. The EF 50mm f/1.2 L was never intended to be a test chart reproduction lens. It was designed to be a portrait lens.
It left some field curvature uncorrected to keep the bokeh smooth. If refocused so that the edges are at their sharpest, it does better than most expect. But that is a different focus distance than when the lens is focused for the center to be at its sharpest.
Upvote
0
So it's not going to be announced until June.
(Being silly. That's the way people in the USA read that date.)
Upvote
0
That all depends upon what one means by "better". Flat field correction usually means less smooth bokeh, especially prior to the late 2010s.
Roger Cicala talked about this in one of his blogs a while back.
If you want to do document reproduction (or shoot the sharpest photos of flat test charts) you need a different type of lens than the EF 50mm f/1.2 L. It doesn't matter if the out of focus areas are harsh when your entire field is the same distance from the camera.
If you're shooting portraits in a 3D environment (i.e. not in a studio with a diffuse backdrop), though, smooth out of focus areas are far more important than the edges and corners being focused on exactly the same distance as the center of the field is focused.
Upvote
0
It still amazes me how some people keep buying the lens, even today, instead of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art.
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.www.the-digital-picture.com
Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
Not everyone buys lenses to do flat document (i.e. test charts) reproduction. The idea that flat field correction is more important than smooth out of focus areas for an f/1.2 portrait prime is misguided at best.
If you want to be the best test chart shooter in the world, then the Art is the lens for you.
Upvote
0
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
Either that, or some photographers understand that the best lens for one use case is not always the best lens for all use cases?
Why choose a portrait lens used in a 3D world based only on how it performs reproducing flat test charts? Even if that flat field correction that gives it superior performance reproducing the edges of flat test charts makes out of focus areas look harsh or busy?
Upvote
0
A bit naive...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
Upvote
0
Similar threads
