Here are more Canon EOS R6 Specifications [CR2]

[Tsun]

I think unless Canon has some surprise for us R6 @$2500 won't be much of a competition in photography to Sony a7 III/a7R III, due to higher price, lower pixel count and worse lens selection - unless R6 has something special in terms of image quality, looks like Sony will be the clear choice.

 

[navastronia]

I think unless Canon has some surprise for us R6 @$2500 won't be much of a competition in photography to Sony a7 III/a7R III, due to higher price, lower pixel count and worse lens selection - unless R6 has something special in terms of image quality, looks like Sony will be the clear choice.

It's competing with the a7s

 

[padam]

I think unless Canon has some surprise for us R6 @$2500 won't be much of a competition in photography to Sony a7 III/a7R III, due to higher price, lower pixel count and worse lens selection - unless R6 has something special in terms of image quality, looks like Sony will be the clear choice.

It is aimed at the future A7IV (or a bit towards the A7SIII as well).
It has much better video specs than the A7III with 10bit 4k60p, swivel screen, probably better IBIS, more advanced AF, way better EVF and screen, both card slots are UHS-II, etc.
A7RIII is a cheap option to get 42MP, but severly lacking in other aspects, slower frame-rate, not as good AF, no full touchscreen, etc. I mean it is a much older camera of course, so it should be lagging behind.

And while the current lens selection is less, but what they have for the new wider RF mount is looking better than the Sony, with IS on both the 15-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 lenses, with Sony one has to go to f/4 to get lens IS, 70-200/2.8 much more compact, etc.
Nothing particularly wrong with Sony, but the EOS R system is looking pretty strong for 2020, and it's only going to get better still.

 

[navastronia]

So... does the R6 have better iso capability (does the mean low light capability?) because of the 20MP count? vs the R5's possible 40+? I remember seeing posts in the past that say high megapixels have no relation to the low light abilities... but yea just not sure sure which info is correct.

I don't think it's going to have better high-ISO performance than the R5.

Evidence: photonstophotos.net's DR/ISO performance chart shows that the 1DX mk. III and the 5D mk. IV have basically the same DR from ISO 400 to ISO 25600, with the mk. IV actually pulling ahead (despite its higher MP sensor) after that point.

 

[iheartcanon]

Is the R6 expected to have better high ISO performance than the R5?

Surely not, am I missing something?

 

[padam]

Is the R6 expected to have better high ISO performance than the R5?

Surely not, am I missing something?

It is probably just a hair better, the AF might also be a little more sensitive and in some video modes (like 4k60p) the ISO should be much better.

The main purpose of this to have a camera much cheaper than the R5, while keeping as much stills and video features as possible.
Looks like they've done a pretty good job with that.

 

[padam]

I don't think it's going to have better high-ISO performance than the R5.

Evidence: photonstophotos.net's DR/ISO performance chart shows that the 1DX mk. III and the 5D mk. IV have basically the same DR from ISO 400 to ISO 25600, with the mk. IV actually pulling ahead (despite its higher MP sensor) after that point.

There is more to it than just graph numbers and point scores.
Looking at actual test images, from ISO 6400 upwards, the 1DX III starts to retain better colour and detail compared to the 5D IV.
I expect the R5 to improve, but when pushing the ISO beyond 10000 (which most people don't actually do), the R6 might still be a bit better.

 

[Sharlin]

- RAW is not chroma subsampled AFAIK, whereas the 10 bit will likely be 422.

Well, a Bayer sensor inherently has less chroma than luma resolution (half green, quarter red and blue). So RAW footage is unlikely to have much more chroma information than 4:2:2 compressed YCbCr video.

 

[Sharlin]

"Head detection" but not "eye detection". Unbelievable. Not in the market for the R6, but if I was I'd be severely disappointed.

I thought this was a rumor, not a comprehensive spec sheet. But maybe I was wrong...

 

[DBounce]

This sounds like the camera that a Sony A7S3 would have to compete with. Both 4K high sensitivity.

 

[Joules]

So... does the R6 have better iso capability (does the mean low light capability?) because of the 20MP count? vs the R5's possible 40+? I remember seeing posts in the past that say high megapixels have no relation to the low light abilities... but yea just not sure sure which info is correct.

If you aren't sure if MP count has a significant impact on low light capability (noise), just see for yourself:

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

Do the images on the right (lower resolution) look better to you then the ones one the left (higher resolution)?

 

[ryebread]

will the R6 have 1/8000?

 

[peters]

So I guess with these features, it is going to sell very well at 2500$, definitely more interesting than the R5.

I think that largely depends on who you ask. The big gap in resolution can be an important reason for the R5.
We do a lot of product photography (currently with the Sony A7R IV). And having a high resolution is truely beneficial for clean cutouts and clean retouch. 20mpixel is simply not enough for the kind of quality we seek.
Also landscapes for big prints, birds, sports, weddings, events... all these realy benefit from a higher resolution.
In video terms, I guess it depends. 120fps in 4k is truely a magnificent features. Its realy a big think for weddings, event documentation, some sports, imagefilms. And the 8k RAW mode may be interesting for some commercial productions. Maybe even in bigger film productions as a B-Cam for droneshots, or shots in tight spaces where a big cinema camera wont fit.

I think the R6 will be the budget friendly fullfram, just like the 6D was. And it will be VERY much loved by all the influencers on youtube who will recommend it as "the perfect camera out there" for "filmmakers". Mark my words :-D The price point will also make sure that it will sell well.
But I guess that most working photographers will prefer the R5. Very much like the 6D and 5D. Most pros used 5Ds and most amateurs and advanced amateurs used the 6D (which was also a nice camera, no doubt ;-))

 

[peters]

If you aren't sure if MP count has a significant impact on low light capability (noise), just see for yourself:

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

Do the images on the right (lower resolution) look better to you then the ones one the left (higher resolution)?

True, there is indeed no difference. But an optimized sensor with lower megapixel count CAN be noteable better.
And these examples are cameras with a rather medium difference in megapixel. The 20mpixel compared to 45mpixel is a bigger gap.
Also the R6 sensor may be build for better high iso performance. Just like the 6D was. So I guess that its liekely that the R6 will perform notable better.

 

[Joules]

Since I own a EOS 200D/SL2 that has that age, age, age, age old nine digit diamond AF I believe that Canon can do everything to downsize a camera as long as they think it sells.

Not to mention they straight up removed 24p at one point There's nothing safe from the Canon differentiation hammer (Doesn't sound as fun as the c word )

 

[padam]

I think that largely depends on who you ask. The big gap in resolution can be an important reason for the R5.
We do a lot of product photography (currently with the Sony A7R IV). And having a high resolution is truely beneficial for clean cutouts and clean retouch. 20mpixel is simply not enough for the kind of quality we seek.
Also landscapes for big prints, birds, sports, weddings, events... all these realy benefit from a higher resolution.
In video terms, I guess it depends. 120fps in 4k is truely a magnificent features. Its realy a big think for weddings, event documentation, some sports, imagefilms. And the 8k RAW mode may be interesting for some commercial productions. Maybe even in bigger film productions as a B-Cam for droneshots, or shots in tight spaces where a big cinema camera wont fit.

I think the R6 will be the budget friendly fullfram, just like the 6D was. And it will be VERY much loved by all the influencers on youtube who will recommend it as "the perfect camera out there" for "filmmakers". Mark my words :-D The price point will also make sure that it will sell well.
But I guess that most working photographers will prefer the R5. Very much like the 6D and 5D. Most pros used 5Ds and most amateurs and advanced amateurs used the 6D (which was also a nice camera, no doubt ;-))

Resolution is probably the most overrated feature ever for most people.
20MP is plenty for stills, really.
People can still use a 5D Mark II for landscapes in 2020 and beyond, and create award-winning large prints from it.

45MP is better of course, if one can justify spending more, that's totally fine as well, but it is not nearly as much of a difference as the numbers would suggest.
And people will also pay more for bigger memory cards and more storage, a better PC to cope with the bigger files, when they might not actually need it. It is quite linear in terms of file size increase, but not linear in terms of actual resolution gain.

 

[WriteLight]

yea I thought my heart was set on the R5 this whole time, but now I'm really curious about the R6.. still waiting for official specs on R5 before i know for sure

Same here. That 20mp though...that's a tough one. I need a flippy screen as well - has that been confirmed? I don't think I've seen that listed wither way.
EDIT: Looks like flippy screen has been confirmed! Yay!

 

[Joules]

True, there is indeed no difference. But an optimized sensor with lower megapixel count CAN be noteable better.
And these examples are cameras with a rather medium difference in megapixel. The 20mpixel compared to 45mpixel is a bigger gap.
Also the R6 sensor may be build for better high iso performance. Just like the 6D was. So I guess that its liekely that the R6 will perform notable better.

Would you mind providing an example for your first point? I can't think of one.

Sure, the MP difference isn't as big in my example, but I had to chose cameras with comparable sensor tech. And unfortunately the 5DS isn't quite the same tech as the 1DX II, as it doesn't have DPAF yet. So any difference could be explained by sensor tech. Nonetheless, I don't think the 1DX II really outperforms it purely in noise. One also has to keep in mind that higher resolutions allow for more effective noise reduction. And that the R5 also has a new sensor. I don't see why the R5 would lack any optimizations the R6 is getting.

I guess that the R6 is just reusing the 1DXIII sensor. Looking at the comparison, I would hardly call that notably better than any of the others:

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

 

[peters]

Resolution is probably the most overrated feature ever for most people.
20MP is plenty for stills, really.
45MP is better of course, if one can justify spending more, that's totally fine as well, but it is not nearly as much of a difference as the numbers would suggest.
And people will also pay more for bigger memory cards and more storage, a better PC to cope with the bigger files, when they might not actually need it. It is quite linear in terms of file size increase, but not linear in terms of actual resolution gain.

Hm jeah, I think it depends. I personaly found the difference between the 5D III and my 5D IV with 22 vs 30mpixel not that important (thought notable) in the real world.
But my Sony A7R IV with 60mpixel is truely A LOT better for product photography in the studio. The level of detail is simply impressive (given good light and sharp lenses). It allows for way cleaner cutouts and way better retouching. And the possibilites that comes with the room to crop is also very handy for event-photography.
45mpixel is a small step back for me, but I agree that its indeed not important in the real world.

Storage and better PC is no problem though. We use dropbox business with unlimited backup storage. Also big NAS systems with enough space.
Since we used the 1DX II (with ludacrous big files) and now the Lumix S1H (also very big files in 6k) for a lot of video productions, we are totaly used to a lot of massive foldes. Photography is (compared to that) not even a dent in our storage count :-D

 

[peters]

Would you mind providing an example for your first point? I can't think of one.

Sure, the MP difference isn't as big in my example, but I had to chose cameras with comparable sensor tech. And unfortunately the 5DS isn't quite the same tech as the 1DX II, as it doesn't have DPAF yet. So any difference could be explained by sensor tech. Nonetheless, I don't think the 1DX II really outperforms it purely in noise. One also has to keep in mind that higher resolutions allow for more effective noise reduction. And that the R5 also has a new sensor. I don't see why the R5 would lack any optimizations the R6 is getting.

I guess that the R6 is just reusing the 1DXIII sensor. Looking at the comparison, I would hardly call that notably better than any of the others:

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

Hm, you are correct, I justed wanted to name the Canon 6D which was always named as a good high iso performer - but in this test its not so much better than the canon 5D line...

I think the a7s vs a7r could be a good exmaple. Though its a truely big gap in resolution here. If we downsample the a7r images to 12mpixel, its likely to look very similar.

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com