The Canon EOS R6 Mark II will be announced on November 2, 2022

[r134a]

Quite possibly Canon realised they had a surplus of 1Dxiii sensors and knew that sales of that camera would decline, so putting a modified version in the original R6 was a sound economic move. It paid off, because the R6, despite its relatively lowly MP count, has proved to be a very popular camera. But they knew all along that they'd eventually need at least 24MP to remain competitive against Sony and Nikon, so a 24MP sensor is inevitable at this point. And of course you are correct that while the 24MP sensor will probably have some advantages over the 20MP sensor, 99% of enthusiasts won't be able to detect any difference.

Price-wise, I expect the R6ii to launch at the same price as the R6, and to see the price of the latter drop quite rapidly. I don't know whether your guesstimate of a $1000-2000 increase for a stacked BSI sensor is accurate, but there are factors other than pure cost, that would influence people deciding between R6ii and R3 - e.g. many people simply don't want the bulk and weight of an integral vertical grip.

I agree it makes sense. Truthfully, the 1DX sensor is very good even today and people have made many "cover of nat geo" images with it. It also makes sense that they would continue to use those sensors until they ran out supply and ramped up production on the "true" R6.

I'm kind of basing that on the cost for a sensor repair on an R3, but I don't think there's any way that we can get the actual cost. Unless they intend on marketing the mk2 as a sports and action focused camera with that sensor, it doesn't make sense to have the much more expensive sensor since the target market for that camera is portrait photographers who don't care much about rolling shutter anyway. Without the R3 getting an upgrade either I don't see them stepping on it's sales with an R6 that performs even a little like an R3.

I expect the body to be the same (dial, no second screen), a very similar sensor with a slightly tighter PPI making 24MP (with commensurately slightly less low light performance), and unlimited 4k60 clog3 video for a couple hundred dollar premium.

The biggest indicator to me is the firmware that came out for both the R5 and R6, the R6 was specifically missing the video recording change that the R5 got... Because it was being saved for the mk2.

 

[r134a]

You aren't the first one to float this theory, so try not to take it personally, but the idea that the world's biggest selling camera company is so astoundingly incompetent that they cannot accurately project the volume of sensors they need to manufacture for their flagship camera is just bat poop crazy.

It's not that they messed up projections, it's that they planned to use that sensor because it's very good.

 

[unfocused]

I think The Rolling Stones summed up our desires for certain specs

Man! They look so young! Makes me feel even older.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I do not need any "beast" features, but I would love to see Canon not treating the low megapixel camera as an amateur camera, while the R5 is aimed at professionals. There are good reasons why even professionals might prefer a low megapixel camera with higher dynamic range in return. So this camera should be like a low megapixel R5. That means a top LCD display and at least one CFexpress slot.

I really hope that the competition from Sony and the upcoming Nikon Z8 will force Canon to cripple the R6 Mark II much less than the R6.

The R7 also has many features that he R6 has not. That really has to be corrected.

 

[unfocused]

It's not that they messed up projections, it's that they planned to use that sensor because it's very good.

I agree with that. But, that wasn't what the OP said.

His statement: "Quite possibly Canon realised they had a surplus of 1Dxiii sensors..."

I take issue with the suggestion that Canon simply "realized" they had a "surplus" and presumably then designed a camera to use up that surplus. That's what I call crazy. Canon isn't some corner pub that says, "Gee we ordered too many pepperonis, let's run a special on pepperoni pizza."

 

[entoman]

It's not that they messed up projections, it's that they planned to use that sensor because it's very good.

The way I see it is that Canon took a gamble that using the "pro" sensor from the 1Dxiii, would offset the predictable negativity about having "only" 20MP. But they also knew that they could only get away with that approach for a limited time, simply because all of the competition were already using 24MP or higher.

There's nothing unusual about companies messing up projections, but the most likely scenario is that Canon over-estimated sales of the 1DXiii when designing its sensor, and at the same time knew that it made economic sense to use the same sensor in the then upcoming R6. Canon have a long history of repurposing their sensors for multiple cameras, and they'll try to get away with doing so for as long as possible.

It'll be interesting to discover whether the R6ii sensor is a "crippled" R3 sensor, or an entirely new design that will find its way in one form or another into multiple enthusiast bodies.

 

[melgross]

My birthday!!!

 

[ashmadux]

the 20mp sensor is the only thing holding me back from the r6. the R doesnt have IBIS, so that is DOA for me. No more bodies without ibis.

As long as image quality hasnt suffered (r6 supposedly has sharper images that the R5, overall better IQ), then i'm in.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The way I see it is that Canon took a gamble that using the "pro" sensor from the 1Dxiii, would offset the predictable negativity about having "only" 20MP. But they also knew that they could only get away with that approach for a limited time, simply because all of the competition were already using 24MP or higher.

There's nothing unusual about companies messing up projections, but the most likely scenario is that Canon over-estimated sales of the 1DXiii when designing its sensor, and at the same time knew that it made economic sense to use the same sensor in the then upcoming R6. Canon have a long history of repurposing their sensors for multiple cameras, and they'll try to get away with doing so for as long as possible.

I asked this before of another poster with the same silly hypothesis. How could the 'surplus sensors' (just laying around and not actually yet used to assemble cameras) from a camera priced $6500 and with correspondingly low unit sales possibly support even an initial production run for a camera priced at $2500 and expected to sell in far higher numbers.

 

[r134a]

I agree with that. But, that wasn't what the OP said.

His statement: "Quite possibly Canon realised they had a surplus of 1Dxiii sensors..."

I take issue with the suggestion that Canon simply "realized" they had a "surplus" and presumably then designed a camera to use up that surplus. That's what I call crazy. Canon isn't some corner pub that says, "Gee we ordered too many pepperonis, let's run a special on pepperoni pizza."

That's fair. They definitely make projections and most likely stick to them in a way that optimizes sales and minimizes cost. The R6 was likely in design several years before we even heard about it, at a time when mirrorless was not accepted as the standard like it is today.

The way I see it is that Canon took a gamble that using the "pro" sensor from the 1Dxiii, would offset the predictable negativity about having "only" 20MP. But they also knew that they could only get away with that approach for a limited time, simply because all of the competition were already using 24MP or higher.

There's nothing unusual about companies messing up projections, but the most likely scenario is that Canon over-estimated sales of the 1DXiii when designing its sensor, and at the same time knew that it made economic sense to use the same sensor in the then upcoming R6. Canon have a long history of repurposing their sensors for multiple cameras, and they'll try to get away with doing so for as long as possible.

It'll be interesting to discover whether the R6ii sensor is a "crippled" R3 sensor, or an entirely new design that will find its way in one form or another into multiple enthusiast bodies.

I think what he was saying is it didn't happen on accident.

You know, what could they really do to cripple the R3 sensor without having to manufacture it in a significantly different way? That's why I won't buy that they're going to put this expensive high performance sensor in a camera two categories cheaper in the market segment aimed at bloggers and wedding photographers. I've pretty much convinced myself it's going to be a new sensor with slightly increased density but otherwise the same as the current sensor.

 

[unfocused]

...You know, what could they really do to cripple the R3 sensor without having to manufacture it in a significantly different way? That's why I won't buy that they're going to put this expensive high performance sensor in a camera two categories cheaper in the market segment aimed at bloggers and wedding photographers. I've pretty much convinced myself it's going to be a new sensor with slightly increased density but otherwise the same as the current sensor.

I don't know whether they will use the same sensor in the R6II or not, but it wouldn't be unusual for Canon to reuse essentially the same sensor from a more expensive model. Going as far back as the 7D, Canon routinely used the sensors in subsequent XXD bodies and even Rebels. Just one example.

I don't see the R3 sensor as a major selling point for the camera. As an R3 owner, I bought the camera for the entire package and actually purchased it despite its sensor (I would have preferred at least 30 mp). In actual use, I can find no practical advantage to the R3 sensor over the R5 (which I also own), although I can find some small advantage for the R5 sensor due to higher resolution (although that is not that significant either).

In short, I think people make way too much of small differences in sensors and feel that if you buy a camera based on these well-hyped differences, you are unlikely to be able to tell the difference in your pictures.

I will not be surprised if Canon uses the R3 sensor in the R6II. As an R3 owner it won't bother me in the least. If I were advising a potential buyer I would tell them to make their decision on other factors regardless of the sensor that goes into the R6.

 

[SHAMwow]

I think the unusual release cycle (usually 4 years) points to a rushed decision. The R6 honestly has some underwhelming specs against Sony's A7IV, mainly people will instantly spot 13 megapixels less and ask themselves why they should pay the same for an otherwise more or less similar spec'd camera.
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon put the R3 sensor in order to save development and production time. Put it in the same housing, put a firmware update, and there you go: R6 Mark II.
There were rumors of another 30 MP model on the horizon, but probably the development or production of the sensor is simply not ready yet.

What else is underwhelming? You listed one spec, that really doesn't account for much difference in actual use.

 

[SHAMwow]

They weren't originally going to be announced together, COVID changed the schedule.

The R6 and the R5 are very different segments. There is far more competition and unit sales at the $2500ish pricepoint and staying current is important. The R5 has the R5 C to make up for "issues' with the R5 for videographers. Another R5 series is camera is coming, but it's not an R5 Mark II.

Will the 135mm also be announced on the 2nd?

 

[binary]

Things I want.
1. Switch/Knob to quickly change from photo/video like the Nikon Z6
2. 4K 60 no crop.
3. No overheating
4. Save custom photo/videos like the A7iv
5. Aperture/Shutter priority video which is not in the current R6
6. New hot shoe that you can screw tighter from the outside vs the inside like R6/R5
7. All-I 4.2.2 10 bit in standard video mode without having to use c-log like A7iv.

If they give me those things, I'll sell my A7iv asap. I can't stand sony's ibis for handheld video and their color science for skin tones.

1.1 crop in R6 isn't that bad. It's barely noticeable. You can get used to it.
I actually like Sony's skin tones, they are very natural but instead I hate green colours. Grass and trees look horrible without any colour correction.

 

[1in8billion]

A “beast”. Looks like we may be getting that stacked censor after all boys and gals.

 

[ashmadux]

I don't know whether they will use the same sensor in the R6II or not, but it wouldn't be unusual for Canon to reuse essentially the same sensor from a more expensive model. Going as far back as the 7D, Canon routinely used the sensors in subsequent XXD bodies and even Rebels. Just one example.

I don't see the R3 sensor as a major selling point for the camera. As an R3 owner, I bought the camera for the entire package and actually purchased it despite its sensor (I would have preferred at least 30 mp). In actual use, I can find no practical advantage to the R3 sensor over the R5 (which I also own), although I can find some small advantage for the R5 sensor due to higher resolution (although that is not that significant either).

In short, I think people make way too much of small differences in sensors and feel that if you buy a camera based on these well-hyped differences, you are unlikely to be able to tell the difference in your pictures.

I will not be surprised if Canon uses the R3 sensor in the R6II. As an R3 owner it won't bother me in the least. If I were advising a potential buyer I would tell them to make their decision on other factors regardless of the sensor that goes into the R6.

Some of these differences aren't exactly "small". Several sites have noticed the better image quality on the R6 over the R5. Even the trusty Brian at TDP has charts showing the difference between r6 20mp sensor and the R 30mp sensor, a holdever from the 5d4 that produces softer results. I only noticed this because i almost purchased a refurb R. (and also thought it had IBIS..it doesnt, no sale).
Softer results are a BIG deal. Some of us buy cameras for the best IQ we can get. Features be damned, whatever sensor it has better have at least as good iq as the camera its replacing. These are nearly 3 thousand dollar bodies. Get that soft image/weak sensor crap out of here...uncceptable.

 

[1in8billion]

Second gen R6 and still no R1? Time is ticking Canon. Falling behind the competition again.

The cope is unreal. Proving my earlier comments daily.

The Sony is behind. The A7SIII had people moving platforms and everything since then has fell flat. Even the A7RV is just an R5 with worse autofocus and still dog ish IBIS. For the same price, two years later. Talk about falling behind. Where is all the criticism for Sony being super underwhelming without ANY give on price, milking the hell out of the fanboys.

People jumped on the hype train and now they’ve been running around comment sections justifying their purchase since.

 

[rpiotr01]

A “beast”. Looks like we may be getting that stacked censor after all boys and gals.

Maybe they’re just gonna make it exceptionally, almost comically large and heavy.

 

[1in8billion]

Maybe they’re just gonna make it exceptionally, almost comically large and heavy.

Haha, yeah. Maybe they’re making it so it’s angry all the time and tries to eat you every time you take a picture.

 

[David - Sydney]

Didn't know that. A lot of people indeed use the R6 as a wedding camera. Also don't forget the video overheating that was, unlike the R5, never fixed. Impossible to use it to do 4k video and photography on events or weddings

I don't own a R6 but Canon did release a number of video recording length improvements. Can anyone that owns a R6 confirm that there are no real thermal limits anymore - besides the arbitrary 30 minute clip length?

2020 Firmware 1.1.1 released 3 months after launch
Continuous recording:
Original = Record a 41:00 clip before overheating; ~21min after a 60:00 cooldown
FW1.1.1 = Record a 49:20 clip before overheating; ~39min after a 30:00 cooldown
15:00 clip then 5:00 cooldown, followed by a 10:00 clip then 5:00 cooldown, another 10:00 clip etc
Original = 40:40 minutes, FW1.1.1 = 117 minutes
It also includes ambient temperature so using an icepack means even longer record and better recovery times

2021 FW 1.3.1 adds "Light" IPB codecs for lower bit rate shooting

2022 FW 1.6 also includes a menu option for allowing higher temperatures. The bottom plate acts as a heat sink so tripod mounting helps dissipate heat as well.