Canon EOS R6 Mark II – Here are some more specifications

[drisley]

I know somebody who has seen and used the R6 II (and 135 1.8) and sadly there is no top LCD. He also said the video wasn't great. I don't really know what that means, but I suspect that means a crop. I'd take the full frame (1.07 crop) of the R6 with some time restrictions (will never record more than 15 mins max at any time anyway) over a crop. This is one reason the Sony a7IV was a no go.
It's weird how the much cheaper EOS R has the same body as the R5 (metal, top LCD, bigger/higher res back LCD) and the R6 which costs more has a much cheaper body (plastic, no top LCD, smaller/ower res back LCD). Having shot Canon for 18 years, I had a top LCD on all my cameras. Not having one is really a huge loss imho.

 

[AlanF]

Well, I understand that. But I'm a laymen. I guess what I was really getting at is that Fuji has nothing really compatible with birding.

I’m a bit of a geek as well as a passionate birder.

 

[Johnw]

New information in bold

RF/RF-S Lenses

Was it really "new information" that the R6II would be an RF mount camera?

 

[Jethro]

I know somebody who has seen and used the R6 II (and 135 1.8) and sadly there is no top LCD. He also said the video wasn't great. I don't really know what that means, but I suspect that means a crop. I'd take the full frame (1.07 crop) of the R6 with some time restrictions (will never record more than 15 mins max at any time anyway) over a crop. This is one reason the Sony a7IV was a no go.
It's weird how the much cheaper EOS R has the same body as the R5 (metal, top LCD, bigger/higher res back LCD) and the R6 which costs more has a much cheaper body (plastic, no top LCD, smaller/ower res back LCD). Having shot Canon for 18 years, I had a top LCD on all my cameras. Not having one is really a huge loss imho.

The R6 already has a crop in some video formats, and also has no top LCD, so it's nothing new. I sort of agree in general about the top LCD, but with the EOS R, I find myself using the info in the EVF more and more anyway. And on tripod I use the back LCD anyway. If the R6 II specs (and performance obviously) are convincing, it could be my move-up from the EOS R. I'm not really a video user though.

 

[Del Paso]

I know somebody who has seen and used the R6 II (and 135 1.8) and sadly there is no top LCD. He also said the video wasn't great. I don't really know what that means, but I suspect that means a crop. I'd take the full frame (1.07 crop) of the R6 with some time restrictions (will never record more than 15 mins max at any time anyway) over a crop. This is one reason the Sony a7IV was a no go.
It's weird how the much cheaper EOS R has the same body as the R5 (metal, top LCD, bigger/higher res back LCD) and the R6 which costs more has a much cheaper body (plastic, no top LCD, smaller/ower res back LCD). Having shot Canon for 18 years, I had a top LCD on all my cameras. Not having one is really a huge loss imho.

The EOS R is a fantastic bargain for stills shooters.
It suffered from undeserved (sensor) and deserved (video) criticism, but it's worth far more than its current selling price.

 

[drisley]

The EOS R is a fantastic bargain for stills shooters.
It suffered from undeserved (sensor) and deserved (video) criticism, but it's worth far more than its current selling price.

If you don't push/pull files too much or shoot at super high ISOs, it is still very good. The 5DIV still had much cleaner images than the R (and probably the best IQ of all Canon cameras imho), but it's AF was very unreliable.

 

[AlanF]

If you don't push/pull files too much or shoot at super high ISOs, it is still very good. The 5DIV still had much cleaner images than the R (and probably the best IQ of all Canon cameras imho), but it's AF was very unreliable.

The R and the 5DIV have exactly the same sensors and perform the same in tests for pushing/pulling as measured on photonstophotos.net so how does the 5DIV produce cleaner images?

 

[Del Paso]

If you don't push/pull files too much or shoot at super high ISOs, it is still very good. The 5DIV still had much cleaner images than the R (and probably the best IQ of all Canon cameras imho), but it's AF was very unreliable.

I use both cameras with the same lenses, never noticed what you call "much cleaner" images. Brian from TDP speaks of slightly sharper 5 D IV pictures (???), I use R and 5 D IV without spending a single thought on so called differences. If they exist, they must be really tenuous.

 

[stevelee]

I see the 5D IV refurb listed <$1800 from Canon. That is tempting.

 

[Del Paso]

I see the 5D IV refurb listed <$1800 from Canon. That is tempting.

Still my favourite Canon camera. Nothing beats an optical viewfinder, neither the R5's, nor the Leica SL's.
Yes, I know, mirrorless has some important advantages, but the viewfinder's "visible"quality is none of them.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Canon will never give you the top LCD on the R6 series. Why should they? They want you to feel like you have bought the second choice camera. So you keep looking at the R5 in the future. They don’t serve you, you serve them!
You want an affordable fullframe body with 45 mpix, inbuilt battery grip, global shutter, fast eye/spot AF switch mode, etc. But they don’t care about you. They will keep producing stuff that is good for them. Not for you. The trick is: you have to keep wishing for better, so you keep buying. The time were Canon made the perfect camera is OVER. They will always leave some specs out that makes it the best camera for you. I bought 2 R6 bodies on a cashback period, so I paid 1800 a piece Tax excluded.
I use my ‘old’ EF lenses. Just to bully them back.

The eye AF is a mayor advantage. That’s why I use these camera’s. They are far from perfect. My R6 bodies sometimes suddenly freeze. The output is horrible when shooting projectorscreens, led lights, tungsten, etc. Even with anti-flicker mode activated.
They cannot even make their products work. As you can tell, I am extremely disappointed in Canon for a while now. And NO I am not a troll, and I am not working for another camera brand. I am a press photographer with a critical view on Canons way of going about these days…

I am waiting for the camera that has 45 mpix, quick shift between eye and spot AF, inbuilt battery grip and a shutter that does not go crazy when shooting tungsten/led/beamerscreens etc.

And when it hits the market I will wait for a cashback or pricedrop. Just because Canons pricing is beyond every limit.

Canon, come on!

R6 does have quick shift between eye and spot af. It is called dual back button focus

 

[drisley]

The R and the 5DIV have exactly the same sensors and perform the same in tests for pushing/pulling as measured on photonstophotos.net so how does the 5DIV produce cleaner images?

Same sensors perhaps, but most likely differences caused by the AF being on the sensor of the mirrorless system. This is common with mirrorless systems and why the mirrorless equivalents in the Nikon lineup have more noise and banding that do not exist in the DSLR counterparts.
I've owned both cams and shot thousands of images with them and there is a difference. I know Tool did comparisons of the R and 5DIV when the R was released and found exactly what I found... more noise and pattern noise in the R that wasn't there on the 5DIV.
I've had people who have never owned these cameras try to tell me otherwise based on charts. LOL
And actually, if you check DXO, the 5DIV has better dynamic range and better SNR than the R. (though none of the charts will point out the ugly pattern noise that is more of a problem than even total noise).

 

[drisley]

Still my favourite Canon camera. Nothing beats an optical viewfinder, neither the R5's, nor the Leica SL's.
Yes, I know, mirrorless has some important advantages, but the viewfinder's "visible"quality is none of them.

The 5D IV produced the best IQ I've ever seen on a camera. SO good! But that AF is pretty unreliable, especially with 3rd party lenses and so it won't work well for me anymore. I remember going out with the 5D IV and Sigma Art 85 and doing a photoshoot for a retirement of a cop I know. In daylight... and when I got home 50% of my pics were out of focus. That same lens on mirrorless is nearly perfect. If I could get the image quality of the 5D IV with the autofocus of the new mirrorless systems I'd love it! I'd say that the 5D IV IQ in many ways is better than even the R5. Either that or I had a copy with an amazing copy of the sensor. The amount of noise at ISO 12,800 was about the same as ISO 800 on most cameras I've used (and no pattern noise, just almost film like grain).

 

[JohnC]

I agree the 5d4 was at the top and is still near the top in IQ. I think the R5 is better though, at least at lower ISO landscape use.

 

[AlanF]

And actually, if you check DXO, the 5DIV has better dynamic range and better SNR than the R. (though none of the charts will point out the ugly pattern noise that is more of a problem than even total noise).

Actually, if you check DXO, the 5DIV and R have identical dynamic ranges and SNR (as do the measurements on photonstophotos.net). They have the same sensor, and you can use the 5DIV in liveview mode that focusses in exactly the same way as the R as a mirrorless, and I have never seen any difference in quality when doing so, apart from the more precise AF.
.

 

[AlanF]

The 5D IV produced the best IQ I've ever seen on a camera. SO good! But that AF is pretty unreliable, especially with 3rd party lenses and so it won't work well for me anymore. I remember going out with the 5D IV and Sigma Art 85 and doing a photoshoot for a retirement of a cop I know. In daylight... and when I got home 50% of my pics were out of focus. That same lens on mirrorless is nearly perfect. If I could get the image quality of the 5D IV with the autofocus of the new mirrorless systems I'd love it! I'd say that the 5D IV IQ in many ways is better than even the R5. Either that or I had a copy with an amazing copy of the sensor. The amount of noise at ISO 12,800 was about the same as ISO 800 on most cameras I've used (and no pattern noise, just almost film like grain).

My 5DIV was not nearly as good as my 5DSR and Nikon D850 DSLRs, or now my R5. How did you find yours in comparison with those?

 

[Sporgon]

The 5D IV produced the best IQ I've ever seen on a camera. SO good! But that AF is pretty unreliable, especially with 3rd party lenses and so it won't work well for me anymore. I remember going out with the 5D IV and Sigma Art 85 and doing a photoshoot for a retirement of a cop I know. In daylight... and when I got home 50% of my pics were out of focus. That same lens on mirrorless is nearly perfect.

You took your chances by using Sigma on the Canon dslr, and it didn’t work out ! But I agree with you on two things; 1, these third party lenses do work so much more reliably and so better on mirrorless, and 2, the 30mp sensor in the 5DIV is lovely. However as Alan says, the sensor in the R is identical, so you can get what you’ve wished for

 

[Del Paso]

The 5D IV produced the best IQ I've ever seen on a camera. SO good! But that AF is pretty unreliable, especially with 3rd party lenses and so it won't work well for me anymore. I remember going out with the 5D IV and Sigma Art 85 and doing a photoshoot for a retirement of a cop I know. In daylight... and when I got home 50% of my pics were out of focus. That same lens on mirrorless is nearly perfect. If I could get the image quality of the 5D IV with the autofocus of the new mirrorless systems I'd love it! I'd say that the 5D IV IQ in many ways is better than even the R5. Either that or I had a copy with an amazing copy of the sensor. The amount of noise at ISO 12,800 was about the same as ISO 800 on most cameras I've used (and no pattern noise, just almost film like grain).

Don't blame the EOS 5 D IV, but the Sigma. Never had any AF issues with mine, only with a Sigma 1,4/35mm which I sent back. Didn't want to "play" with Sigma's dock.
Yet, I doubt its sensor is nearly as good as the R5's...and as good at ISO 12800 as other sensors at ISO 800 ????. Sorry, but I doubt it too.

 

[stevelee]

The only downside for me of the 5D IV would be the immobile screen. If I need that, I will still use the 6D2. I don’t have the autofocus issues that many of you guys have. I don’t chase flying birds. If I am shooting into the woods and the camera can’t obviously lock on which particular branch I have in mind, I will focus manually rather than fiddle with convincing the camera to find the right place. I did find that when I shot video of pick-up basketball games this summer with my G5X II, at the beginning of some shots, focus would fish around for a bit. If I ever use that camera for those videos again, I’ll focus manually on the rim on one side, and depend upon DOF of that small lens to keep everything sharp from that distance. Other than that, I don’t recall any real autofocus issues with any of my cameras.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yet, I doubt its sensor is nearly as good as the R5's...and as good at ISO 12800 as other sensors at ISO 800 ????. Sorry, but I doubt it too.

People see what they want to see. My R did not have pattern noise, and after using a 7D for several years, I certainly know what that looks like.