Here are more Canon EOS R6 Specifications [CR2]

[CDR]

Well that's me pretty much me done! I was one of those who wished there was an R5 version with less video capabilities to bring the price down of the R5 given our weak local currency. If these specs are correct I will certainly be in for the R6 as very little crippling it seems (so far at least). I have used the R for a while and whilst it is truly capable of great images it was never meant to be a wildlife camera especially with the EVF refresh rates / FPS limitations. But this whoa, with the same AF and EVF - I am in and may even be able to look at the 100-500 (well in a while) ...

 

[padam]

• RF 100-500 f4-f7.1 L IS
• RF 800 f11 IS - Not totally sold on f11, but will pre-order and cancel / return if not satisfied.
• RF 1.4x TC depending on compatibility/performance with the the 100-500, not planning to use on the 800 f11.

Why do you need all three items? I mean, the prime should be sharper and lighter, but two lenses mean double the cost and the teleconverter should be an expensive add-on expensive as well.

 

[Jasonmc89]

Really interested to find out just how well this performs in low light. Being interested rainforest wildlife, I’ve had to bin many shots over the years because the iso was just too high. This combined with software such as topaz denoise AI should be pretty amazing.

 

[kocmonabt]

Not really, it is a stills camera with advanced video features.
The RF lenses are a lot bigger than EF-M lenses, and the sensor consumes more power, so it makes perfect sense to have different ergonomics with a bigger battery.
The RP is as close as you can get to an M body with a FF sensor anyway.

True. I disagree with the side swiveling display.

 

[padam]

True. I disagree with the side swiveling display.

You can call it a brand characteristic, each has its ups and downs. For instance, I realised that the swivel screen works great for portrait orientation at a lower angle for shooting kids. I also like it to support my left hand a little for shooting video.
They have used it in interchangeable lens cameras for a decade now, starting with 60D in 2010, and the majority of people liked it and went with it going forward.
Nowadays, they probably also use their smartphones to take selfies or videos, so why would they change it now and take away that option.

For the minority, they might still make cameras like the EOS M5 or M6 with the tilt screen, but those will be the niche ones and more people will prefer cameras like the M50, which is the big seller.

 

[Danglin52]

Why do you need all three items? I mean, the prime should be sharper and lighter, but two lenses mean double the cost and the teleconverter should be an expensive add-on expensive as well.

This list is just a pre-order list that I will fine tune based on reviews during the period of pre-order to ship. It is easier to get on the list up front rather than see a positive review and want to change your pre-order. I am hoping to have a two week trip to GTNP/YNP in late September/early October and would like to have the gear available for the trip. In wildlife photography you shoot in a wide variety of situations, environment and lighting that push the gear requirement. If possible, I will always choose a zoom combination over primes for the versatility IF I can get the IQ, low light performance & reach required for the shot. I shoot the 200-400 w/1.4 integrated TC (f5.6 @560mm) when using a tripod and the 100-400 II + 1.4x TC when I need something handheld. Because the 100-400 is a f5.6 a and f8 with the TC it is slow but workable for handheld shooting in dim conditions. Since the 100-500 is F7.1 + 1.4x tC will be f10, the 800mm becomes a reasonable option @ f11. I don't see any situations other than high noon on a bright sunny day when I would even consider using the 800mm + 1.4x. This is especially true when you consider the lack of separation you will have based on DOF @f16. My bet is that my choice will be the 100-500 + 1.4x TC over the 800mm, but I won't know until I see the reviews OR have it in my has to test. If I don't like it, I will return to the vendor within the return policy.

I wouldn't place any bets on a non-L prime being shaper than an L zoom until I saw the tests, UNLESS it is something like the EF 400mm f4 DO IS II @ $6k plus. You are probably correct on lighter weight based on the experience with the 400 DO. In addition, I might eliminate the TC but the 100-500 is a much more versatile / usable lens than the 800mm. If I had to choose only 1 lens of the 2, it would be the 100-500 + 1.4x TC unless I was a full time birder. There is also the issue of the 800mm@ f11 for birders shooting in forest conditions. I did't do all of the math, but I would only need to crop the R5 + 100-500mm image 18-20% to equal the FOV of the 800mm. With 40-45 mp, that would still leave a 30mp file.

 

[Simon Younglof]

Very excited by the R6 specs now, but until someone with inside information can explain to me how that camera will suffer from less rolling shutter in 4K than the dreadful one on display with the 1dxiii, color me pessimistically intrigued.

 

[padam]

Very excited by the R6 specs now, but until someone with inside information can explain to me how that camera will suffer from less rolling shutter in 4K than the dreadful one on display with the 1dxiii, color me pessimistically intrigued.

It probably won't in FF mode, that's not great, but the other modes should be fine.
With the IBIS, it probably won't be very noticeable for most things in practise.
If it is, switch to crop mode, simple as that.
I don't think cropping in is such a huge deal, it can be considered better for shooting in Canon Log, since correcting the heavy vignetting of some lenses would result in a lot of noise, and the blur will look more even as well.

 

[Chaitanya]

So both cameras will share battery grip and should be a good competition to all the 24MP MILC on market.

 

[Tsun]

My reaction as well....Sony is no longer even on the same planet as Canon. They had a good run, but I think its time for them to focus on their Playstations, TVs, and BluRay players and leave cameras to Canon.

Care to elaborate how Canon R6 beats Sony a7 III/a7R III in terms of photography? For video I agree, unless something unexpected happens it will be superior, but in terms of stills it looks like it will be the other way around. Other than personal attacks I haven't seen any arguments to the contrary, other than "probably better IBIS, more advanced AF", which are not possible to compare with just leaked specs.

 

[Etienne]

I'm glad I held off with my jump to mirrorless into Sony A7 system, or R ( EOS-M bodies don't count).
This is looking great, better than I expected from Canon. I hope it is real. The R6 looks like it will be best for me, although I may miss the high res photos that I'd get from the R5 once in a while, and build quality.
Build quality is the main concern from R6 specs. I hope it is weather sealed and tough

 

[Etienne]

Very excited by the R6 specs now, but until someone with inside information can explain to me how that camera will suffer from less rolling shutter in 4K than the dreadful one on display with the 1dxiii, color me pessimistically intrigued.

There is no way of knowing until the camera is tested. There may be a different sensor, a different processor. One would think that if it is intended to be a video-centric camera that they would have paid attention to rolling shutter. My first thought upon seeing the large drop in megapixels from the R5 was so that they could speed up readout for video thereby reducing rolling shutter.
We'll just have to wait and see, but it is definitely a concern.

 

[Aussie shooter]

.its been a while since we have seen a sony attempt at fake news. You can only laugh

 

[Etienne]

Another thought on video of R5 vs R6: Digital zoom.
If Canon implements a usable digital zoom on the R5 you could get 4K at twice the focal length and 1080p at 4 times the focal length.
This would turn the RF 70-200 f/2.8L into a 70-400 in 4K, or a 70-800 in 1080p. That would be worth the extra money if the resulting video is excellent.

 

[padam]

Care to elaborate how Canon R6 beats Sony a7 III/a7R III in terms of photography? For video I agree, unless something unexpected happens it will be superior, but in terms of stills it looks like it will be the other way around. Other than personal attacks I haven't seen any arguments to the contrary, other than "probably better IBIS, more advanced AF", which are not possible to compare with just leaked specs.

The EOS R is already superior in quite a few ways to those Sony cameras despite lacking in quite a few things.
Of course if you haven't even tried using the camera, you may not know about these things.
Now: here are these two new cameras, which aren't lacking in those other things, and as good or even better with those things that were already superior. All this in a very well integrated lens system with tons of options and full integration.
Go figure.
All these negative comments are coming from people already invested in Sony, being so sure that they've made "the right choice".
Why do they actually care, if the EOS R6 is better or not, what difference does it make for them if they are mainly looking forward to what Sony is doing and there is no doubt they are going to improve as well?
These comments make no sense.

 

[LesC]

If the R6 ends up almost half the price of the R5 I'd be very interested. The one thing that's odd is the relatively low 20MP sensor. As I have the R & RP (26 &30MP), 20MP seems a bit of a step down? Although i never had an issue with my original 6D which was 'only' 20MP too...

 

[Tsun]

The EOS R is already superior in quite a few ways to those Sony cameras despite lacking in quite a few things.
Of course if you haven't even tried using the camera, you may not know about these things.
Now: here are these two new cameras, which aren't lacking in those other things, and as good or even better with those things that were already superior. All this in a very well integrated lens system with tons of options and full integration.
Go figure.
All these negative comments are coming from people already invested in Sony, being so sure that they've made "the right choice".
Why do they actually care, if the EOS R6 is better or not, what difference does it make for them if they are mainly looking forward to what Sony is doing and there is no doubt they are going to improve as well?
These comments make no sense.

I have zero loyalty towards either brand. I'm looking to upgrade from a fixed-lens Panasonic FZ1000, and a7 III and Canon R6 are the primary contenders. Main purpose is travel photography, I don't care about videos at all.
Before Canon appeared in the picture I was planning to buy a7 III with Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 for about $3k total. It looks like similar set of R6 + Canon RF 24-70MM F2.8L lens will be about $4,7k - over a 50% premium, with not much to justify it at least in terms of specs for my use case. At below $2k with attractively priced option for 24-105 f/4 kit lens it could be worth considering, but at $2,5k body-only + more expensive lenses, it would have to crush Sony in terms of image quality.

 

[Kampie]

Is anything known about the body size of the r6? Will it be comparable to the r5 or smaller like the rp?

 

[usern4cr]

I have zero loyalty towards either brand. I'm looking to upgrade from a fixed-lens Panasonic FZ1000, and a7 III and Canon R6 are the primary contenders. Main purpose is travel photography, I don't care about videos at all.
Before Canon appeared in the picture I was planning to buy a7 III with Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 for about $3k total. It looks like similar set of R6 + Canon RF 24-70MM F2.8L lens will be about $4,7k - over a 50% premium, with not much to justify it at least in terms of specs for my use case. At below $2k with attractively priced option for 24-105 f/4 kit lens it could be worth considering, but at $2,5k body-only + more expensive lenses, it would have to crush Sony in terms of image quality.

I agree with your post regarding the R6 kit needing to be very competitive on price & quality to the A7III(or IV or s) with Sigma(Tamron) 24(28)-70(75) f/2.8 lens if they want to take a big piece of that market. BUT, since you are a FZ1000 shooter you already have a fully articulating screen. If you absolutely love a fully articulating screen (as I do) then that would steer you to the Canon (as it does for me). I take lots of portraits holding the camera at waist level or so and that's a disaster on the Sony. If it doesn't matter to you, then the Sony with their overwhelming line of inexpensive native lenses may be something to seriously consider. But, I'd also look into how much dust gets stuck on the Sony sensor (and not on most other brands) in case it's still an issue. Also make sure you like the feel of it in your hand and using their menus. Better to know you're OK with that before diving into that new system.

 

[padam]

I have zero loyalty towards either brand. I'm looking to upgrade from a fixed-lens Panasonic FZ1000, and a7 III and Canon R6 are the primary contenders. Main purpose is travel photography, I don't care about videos at all.
Before Canon appeared in the picture I was planning to buy a7 III with Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 for about $3k total. It looks like similar set of R6 + Canon RF 24-70MM F2.8L lens will be about $4,7k - over a 50% premium, with not much to justify it at least in terms of specs for my use case. At below $2k with attractively priced option for 24-105 f/4 kit lens it could be worth considering, but at $2,5k body-only + more expensive lenses, it would have to crush Sony in terms of image quality.

Just looking at just the specs sheet and prices (especially for an aftermarket lens) is the wrong way to look at it. If you want cheaper lenses, the Sony has them covered better (but not everything is expensive with Canon, EF can be adapted). It is also smaller.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each system, one thing is just to put the camera in your hand. The Sony is smaller but the grip isn't very comfortable, it is not really made with a 24-70 2.8 in mind.
The Canon sizing (imho) is just perfect.
They also operate in a different manner.

A much older camera with loads of stock available everywhere is going to be priced lower than a brand new one with features we haven't seen in this category, there isn't going to be any surprise about that.
But there are some compromises with that, which you will find once you start using them. Or you don't, that's fine too.
Just don't think that the R6 needs to "crush" Sony in terms of image quality, it probably won't (apart from the colour which Sony users are sensitive about), because its advantages are not related specifically towards that, it is more about the AF system, the wider mount, handling, higher-end lens selection, etc, etc. it's about everything that may attribute to what can make a camera "great" overall.

For travel purposes, the EOS R or even an EOS RP should be taken into consideration, for travel they may not be that much weaker than the R6 in practise, and they cost way less money. There is also the Nikon Z6, etc. plenty of options to choose from.