Canon EOS R6 Mark II already in prototype testing [CR1]

[entoman]

Can mode switching be assigned to the M.Fn button as a can on the R3 (and 1-series)? I find that to be the fastest way to cycle through the modes (just four for me, yours minus P).

Yes it can, but I've assigned Mfn to cycle AF modes (zones) instead, because I often need to change AF modes very quickly, especially when photographing birds and insects. A lot of people assign the AF/ON and/or * buttons to do this, but I just find using the Mfn to cycle through the settings suits my way of working.

I criticised the R5 method of changing exposure modes, but it isn't a big problem, I just prefer the R6 method.

 

[KT]

Lots of Canon MILCs have Eye AF. I think you mean Eye-controlled AF, which is something different. That's a non-trivial feature requiring a larger VF assembly with multiple sensors. Highly doubt we'll see one in an R6-level body, ever. Maybe an R5-level body. Maybe.

Yes, I meant Eye-controlled AF not eye AF, was hoping to see this feature trickle down to a mid-level camera but as you said it's probably too expensive to offer anywhere below R3 / R1 kind of body.

 

[unfocused]

Yes, I meant Eye-controlled AF not eye AF, was hoping to see this feature trickle down to a mid-level camera but as you said it's probably too expensive to offer anywhere below R3 / R1 kind of body.

I’ve found it to be disappointing in real world use. Unless they really improve it, I won’t miss it in the least. I’m sure others will disagree, but I don’t care about it. Now, eye AF is another story entirely.

 

[Fischer]

Still using my 6Dii until Canon cop on and make a decent camera at a decent price with decent MP and a decent battery (lPE6). Hopefully thats the Rii or 8.

R6 is a great affordable camera - and a lot better than the 6DII (which I have also used). Battery life is very good too. One spare is all you will need for a day’s intensive shooting.

 

[Fischer]

I find it difficult to see what Canon could do to *significantly* improve the R6, without the price increasing considerably.

The only regular complaint I read about the camera is that many people consider the 20MP sensor insufficient.

The 20 MPIX is on the small size, but digital software-enlargement such as Gigapixel AI has come a very long way and I am very impressed by how few times I miss having more pixels (even if I’m a pixel hog and just holding out with the R6 while waiting for the much-rumoured-never-appearing high MPIX R).

 

[Videoboy]

R6c anyone?

 

[Bob Howland]

Before buying my R7, I seriously considered an OM Systems OM-1. Last Spring, DP Review did a comparison of the OM-1 and Canon's R3 shooting indoor hockey. The results were as expected, with most of the differences being a result of the large differences in sensor sizes. The thing that was striking was the enormous difference in price. The R3 plus a 70-200 f/2.8 was 2.3 times the OM-1 and their 40-150 f/2.8. Assuming that OM systems is making a profit on the OM-1, is the R3 grotesquely overpriced and could OM systems make a 24MP FF with all the OM-1 features and sell it profitably at $3200? Could Canon do the same thing with an R6-2?

 

[Avenger 2.0]

Two years after its debut and the R6 STILL overheats. Firmware 1.60 fixed overheating on the R5, but did nothing to cure the overheating in the R6. Mine still overheats, just from being on for a while (about an hour). I have no info to say whether the rumor is true or not, but one thing I know is that we are in need of a new version of the R6 to fix the overheating and add a few megapixels to the sensor.

As a wedding and portrait photographer and videographer, the R6 is nearly perfect as a hybrid camera for that world. It’s great in low light and the image is astounding. The only flaws are that it overheats in video and, in certain busy photos, the lower resolution shows up. Canon has demonstrated that it has no desire to fix the R6. So they might as well create a new one with the improvements above.

You are right, but to me it looks like they don't fix this to not cannibalize R5 sales. So a R6ii will certainly be crippled in some (new) way for the same reasons.

 

[Rumours not rumors]

If Canon wants me to jump off my EF mount 90D's over to mirrorless, they would have to offer a 90D equivalent in all respects with perhaps a small drop in pixels BUT it MUST have a battery grip or forget it... no battery grip on the R7 was an instant deal breaker on a camera that consumes more power than a matching DSLR. Ideally I would love a 90D (both of mine have battery grips) with the low light / high ISO performance of a R6 (which has a battery grip) and I'd be grabbing my cheque book. Canon could easily have provided for a grip on the R7 but it seems obvious they held back to buffer the R6. There's plenty of budget DSLR models that have grips available, and the absurdly high price of some Canon grips indicates they must be a profitable cash cow in their own right. A grip is pretty much a couple of mouldings screwed together and a small amount of wiring yet they often cost more than a zoom lens - go figure. The grip not only gives me more shot capacity but also something meaty to grab. If I am forced to get off EF for a toy sized mirrorless, I would have to consider possibly going to Sony because of the availability of 3rd party lens makers like SIGMA. The moment a model of anything electronic hits the shelves, it is on the path to being made obsolete by a new model at some stage so to dumb down a newer model to protect an older model is just plain stupid, not helped by the goofy R numbering leaving no room from something between the 20MP R6 and the 45MP R5. Would have made sense to call the R5 a R4 so there was some wiggle room inbetween. There was no genuine need to try to carry over the numbering system of EF mount models into mirrorless. Who cares if a mirrorless equivalent of a 5D was called a R5 or R4? If they had used R50 and R60 instead of R5 and R6, there'd be more numbers to play with. It was no secret that Sharp used to discontinue microwave oven models when they hit the top selling position as it gave them a launch pad to introduce a new model when customers asked about the previous. Canon not encouraging 3rd party glass makers has huge potential to backfire on them; better to sell a body and no lens than nothing at all. The world has grown tired of companies trying to create monopolies and vote with their feet. Oh and I couldn't care less about video specs. I just want a camera than shoots photos rapidly in low light with minimal image noise. 4K video in a DSLR is as useful to me as an inflatable dart board. </ falls off soap box >

 

[entoman]

If Canon wants me to jump off my EF mount 90D's over to mirrorless, they would have to offer a 90D equivalent in all respects with perhaps a small drop in pixels BUT it MUST have a battery grip or forget it... no battery grip on the R7 was an instant deal breaker on a camera that consumes more power than a matching DSLR. Ideally I would love a 90D (both of mine have battery grips) with the low light / high ISO performance of a R6 (which has a battery grip) and I'd be grabbing my cheque book. Canon could easily have provided for a grip on the R7 but it seems obvious they held back to buffer the R6. (....)

It seems to me that most pros and some sports/wildlife photographers want an integral grip, rather than an add-on. Without knowing the sales figures, I'd also chance my arm by saying that the vast majority of enthusiast users never buy a grip because a) they are ridiculously overpriced, and b) they add too much bulk and weight. The solution IMO is not to provide us with battery grips, but to dispense with the need for them!

Canon really needs to find a way to reduce battery consumption and/or provide batteries that last longer between charging cycles. I understand the desire for continuity, but it seems crazy to me that the R5/6 use basically the same battery as was used in early 5 and 7 series DSLRs. Of course, it's not just the batteries themselves that are the problem - Canon circuitry simply isn't as efficient as that used by Sony, who manage to squeeze a lot more shots out of a battery.

 

[AlanF]

It seems to me that most pros and some sports/wildlife photographers want an integral grip, rather than an add-on. Without knowing the sales figures, I'd also chance my arm by saying that the vast majority of enthusiast users never buy a grip because a) they are ridiculously overpriced, and b) they add too much bulk and weight. The solution IMO is not to provide us with battery grips, but to dispense with the need for them!

Canon really needs to find a way to reduce battery consumption and/or provide batteries that last longer between charging cycles. I understand the desire for continuity, but it seems crazy to me that the R5/6 use basically the same battery as was used in early 5 and 7 series DSLRs. Of course, it's not just the batteries themselves that are the problem - Canon circuitry simply isn't as efficient as that used by Sony, who manage to squeeze a lot more shots out of a battery.

If the only reason for a grip is for it to carry a second battery then why not simply carry a spare or two in your pocket - much cheaper and lighter? Canon could make it better by reducing the cost of the over-priced LP-E6NH.

 

[entoman]

If the only reason for a grip is for it to carry a second battery then why not simply carry a spare or two in your pocket - much cheaper and lighter? Canon could make it better by reducing the cost of the over-priced LP-E6NH.

I always carry at least 2, usually 3, fully charged batteries for a full day's shooting. Usually I get about halfway through the second battery and that's enough, but on major shoots I've had to resort to the third battery on several occasions. All genuine LP-E6NH. And I've got the camera setup to economise with minimum EVF and screen usage etc.

1) it's a damn nuisance having to swap out batteries when there's a lot of action taking place.

2) wildlife and wilderness photographers very often find ourselves in remote places in the world where recharging facilities are either extremely limited, or plain non-existent, so we need maximum shots per battery charge.

3) Canon really needs to get their act together and either improve their circuitry, or provide a longer lasting battery.

CIPA figures - shots per charge:

Canon R5 - 320
Canon R6 - 360
Nikon Z6ii - 410
Nikon Z7ii - 420
Sony a7iv - 580
Sony a7Riv - 670

 

[john1970]

Serious question: Would manufacturers typically have prototypes in testing two years prior to commercial launch?

For me it make sense that Canon could be testing a few different prototypes for a successor to the R6.

 

[MiJax]

Serious question: Would manufacturers typically have prototypes in testing two years prior to commercial launch?

For me it make sense that Canon could be testing a few different prototypes for a successor to the R6.

We normally don't hear about people testing them until about 8 months prior to release/announcement. But I'm sure the internal testing occurs before that.

Don't put too much stock in the source, How to Fly, someone mentioned his Twitter account had like 30 tweets in the last 10 years.

I always carry at least 2, usually 3, fully charged batteries for a full day's shooting. Usually I get about halfway through the second battery and that's enough, but on major shoots I've had to resort to the third battery on several occasions. All genuine LP-E6NH. And I've got the camera setup to economise with minimum EVF and screen usage etc.

1) it's a damn nuisance having to swap out batteries when there's a lot of action taking place.

2) wildlife and wilderness photographers very often find ourselves in remote places in the world where recharging facilities are either extremely limited, or plain non-existent, so we need maximum shots per battery charge.

3) Canon really needs to get their act together and either improve their circuitry, or provide a longer lasting battery.

CIPA figures - shots per charge:

Canon R5 - 320
Canon R6 - 360
Nikon Z6ii - 410
Nikon Z7ii - 420
Sony a7iv - 580
Sony a7Riv - 670

Canon is very low in comparison for reasons I can accept, smaller capacity batteries that are backwards compatible, and better EVF performance (Sony dumbs down the EVF resolution for shooting to save battery and CPU cycles).

If they created a new non-backwards compatible battery I'd bet, they would be significantly closer or better. As well, a lot of the limitations would be removed like frame rate under a certain capacity level. However, they chose to dumb down the camera a little to save people on the expense. Again, that's a good choice, IMO.

 

[sanj]

I always carry at least 2, usually 3, fully charged batteries for a full day's shooting. Usually I get about halfway through the second battery and that's enough, but on major shoots I've had to resort to the third battery on several occasions. All genuine LP-E6NH. And I've got the camera setup to economise with minimum EVF and screen usage etc.

1) it's a damn nuisance having to swap out batteries when there's a lot of action taking place.

2) wildlife and wilderness photographers very often find ourselves in remote places in the world where recharging facilities are either extremely limited, or plain non-existent, so we need maximum shots per battery charge.

3) Canon really needs to get their act together and either improve their circuitry, or provide a longer lasting battery.

CIPA figures - shots per charge:

Canon R5 - 320
Canon R6 - 360
Nikon Z6ii - 410
Nikon Z7ii - 420
Sony a7iv - 580
Sony a7Riv - 670

It takes 10 seconds to change a battery and with proper anticipation, changing batteries is not a problem. No.

 

[scyrene]

Ideally I would love a 90D with the low light / high ISO performance of a R6

Not physically possible?

 

[entoman]

It takes 10 seconds to change a battery and with proper anticipation, changing batteries is not a problem. No.

Some people are happy to accept atrocious performance from Canon's batteries, that's their choice. I've been using Canon gear for 11 years and have spent a great deal of money on it, but I'm not blinded by brand loyalty. When Canon (or any other brand) excels, I'm the first to praise them, but when they significantly underperform compared to other brands, I'll slam them.

 

[Del Paso]

Some people are happy to accept atrocious performance from Canon's batteries, that's their choice. I've been using Canon gear for 11 years and have spent a great deal of money on it, but I'm not blinded by brand loyalty. When Canon (or any other brand) excels, I'm the first to praise them, but when they significantly underperform compared to other brands, I'll slam them.

Is it the batteries, or is it the cameras?
My 5 D IV is a real "battery-eater", unlike my EOS R. I've never succeeded to get more than 450 shots (no bursts!) from the 5 D IV, but more than 800 from the R (no bursts).
My issue is rather durability of the batteries, 2-3 years max. despite careful use and energy efficient settings.
Leica M 240 battery: 8,5 years old, and still good...but horribly expensive when replacement is needed.

 

[entoman]

Is it the batteries, or is it the cameras?
My 5 D IV is a real "battery-eater", unlike my EOS R. I've never succeeded to get more than 450 shots (no bursts!) from the 5 D IV, but more than 800 from the R (no bursts).
My issue is rather durability of the batteries, 2-3 years max. despite careful use and energy efficient settings.
Leica M 240 battery: 8,5 years old, and still good...but horribly expensive when replacement is needed.

3 things really:

Battery performance - this would probably require Canon to develop a physically larger battery, ruling out backwards compatibility, but it's feasible they could squeeze more performance and longevity per charge while retaining the same battery format. There are valid arguments in favour of backwards compatibility, but personally I'd rather that Canon just moved on, and produced the next generation of cameras, using larger and better batteries.

Camera electronics - unfortunately Canon lag behind Sony by a considerable margin here, which is unsurprising, given Sony's long history with electronics. I'm no expert on electronics, but from what I've read and heard, Sony uses much more advanced circuitry than Canon, which places less demand on batteries.

Usage - some photographers will leave a camera turned on for long periods, or spend long periods with finger half-pressed on the shutter, in anticipation of a shot. Some photographers will set the camera to the fastest refresh rate, and have the EVF and sleep timers set to 3 minutes or longer. Others will only switch the camera on just prior to taking a shot, and then turn it off until the next shot. Some will be shooting mainly single shots, some shooting long bursts, some shooting video. Shooting style has a great impact on shots-per-charge.

My R5 battery life roughly corresponds with the CIPA figure of 320 shots per charge.
My 5DMkiv battery life averages about 600 shots per charge (LP-E6NH in both cases).

Regarding durability, I think 2 years is an acceptable lifespan, but a lot will depend on how many recharge cycles the batteries get.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Setting a CR1 record for posts and time at the top of the page it looks like = slow news period