Canon EOS R6 Mark II – Here are some more specifications

[Del Paso]

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.

That's correct. No pattern noise, but nevertheless lots of noise at ISO 12800.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Its pixel pitch is only 3.78 µ, and so about 15% more reach than the R5. Good for birding.

Love the idea of it as a dedicated birding camera. Little bulky, but she'll be right

 

[drisley]

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.
.
View attachment 206074View attachment 206075

You can throw all the charts you want at me bro but I've owned both and shot thousands of images on both. They do NOT produce the same IQ. I sold my R for this very reason.
Go watch Tony Northrups review of the EOS R. The on sensor DPAF of the R produced more image noise and even banding not present in the 5DIV. Periodt.

 

[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?

I've shot thousands of images with both cameras and there is a big difference if you shoot routinely at high ISOs and/or push/pull files a lot (which I do). The 5DIV even at ISO12800 needed no noise reduction (I can provide raw files) even if I wanted to pull up shadows. It was insane. The R had about 1/2 stop more noise and would produce bad magenta/green splotches and banding if the files were massaged; they were very fragile by comparison. They may have had the same sensors but the DPAF on the sensor apparently caused this issue (also did so on the Nikon mirrorless cams too vs the D850 and D750). Charts will not show this.
Tony Northrup shows this perfectly in this video.

 

[drisley]

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.

Naw, the focus reliability on the 5D series was never great and I used the best Canon L lenses too including the 70-200 2.8 II.
My buddy actually has ever Canon DSLR ever made and just got an R3. He did direct comparisons and the 5DIV was just as good as the R3 (with more MP too). The R3 did have some sort of weird circular banding though but to me that may have been a lens abberation (unsure why it didn't show on the 5DIV though).
The Sigmas were flawless on my R for AF though.

 

[drisley]

1J9A3444.CR2

1 file sent via WeTransfer, the simplest way to send your files around the world

we.tl

There you go. 5DIV in terrible low light at ISO 12,800. It's pretty incredible if you ask me. I've yet to use a camera that matches this. I have many more in better lighting that are much better.
I could never do this with my R.

 

[AlanF]

You can throw all the charts you want at me bro but I've owned both and shot thousands of images on both. They do NOT produce the same IQ. I sold my R for this very reason.
Go watch Tony Northrups review of the EOS R. The on sensor DPAF of the R produced more image noise and even banding not present in the 5DIV. Periodt.

No point in throwing charts at you? You told me to check the DxO charts on the 5DIV and the R as they showed the 5DIV was superior, and when I did I found that was not true but they were identical. Instead of apologising, you double down.

 

[drisley]

No point in throwing charts at you? You told me to check the DxO charts on the 5DIV and the R as they showed the 5DIV was superior, and when I did I found that was not true but they were identical. Instead of apologising, you double down.

DXO doesn't show identical at all. The R is worse in every rating. In real world, it's even worse.

 

[AlanF]

DXO doesn't show identical at all. The R is worse in every rating. In real world, it's even worse.

You specifically wrote the DXO charts for dynamic range and SNR, which I then posted, and you now show a different set of charts. Why can't you simply say that you made a mistake quoting those? And it is factually incorrect that the R is worse in every rating - it is identical in some.

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).

 

[neuroanatomist]

DXO doesn't show identical at all. The R is worse in every rating. In real world, it's even worse.

DxO stated: "Comparing the EOS R”s ISO 2742 against the EOS 5 D Mk IV’s ISO 2995, there’s less than 0.13 EV difference in low-light ISO (Sports), just a 0.3-bit difference in color depth (Portrait) at base, and a difference of less than 0.1 EV at the base ISO of 100 in dynamic range (in other words, both cameras have effectively the same dynamic range)."

Linking TN videos is not helping your case, he has the technical comprehension of a bowling ball.

All of those differences are essentially meaningless, the sensors have effectively identical performance. If you're seeing a real-world difference, there's something else going on, e.g. your R was defective.

 

[drisley]

DxO stated: "Comparing the EOS R”s ISO 2742 against the EOS 5 D Mk IV’s ISO 2995, there’s less than 0.13 EV difference in low-light ISO (Sports), just a 0.3-bit difference in color depth (Portrait) at base, and a difference of less than 0.1 EV at the base ISO of 100 in dynamic range (in other words, both cameras have effectively the same dynamic range)."

Linking TN videos is not helping your case, he has the technical comprehension of a bowling ball.

All of those differences are essentially meaningless, the sensors have effectively identical performance. If you're seeing a real-world difference, there's something else going on, e.g. your R was defective.

DXO shows the sensors are not identical in performance (regardless of the amount) which points to something different going on with the signal processing or something else. There should be no variation like this if they had identical sensors, identical signal processing and identical output. But again, a chart will not show things like banding and pattern noise. Real world is worse as I said I've shot thousands of images with both cameras and the R is fine in normal light, when you are not pushing/pulling files. But in lower light or when you need to recover shadows the R is significantly worse than the 5DIV. I returned the R and tried 2 more copies before I decided to keep one. They were all the same.
I normally agree that Tony is normally not somebody I admire for technical info, but what he showed in his videos mirrored my experience EXACTLY. You don't have to be a technical genius to see the photos/comparisons for yourself. At least Tony did some investigating to compare the IQ of the cameras rather than just say "it has the same sensor as the 5DIV" and call it a day like 99.9% of "influencers".
The fact is, most people do not shoot at ISO 6400 and up a lot or pull up shadows. I do. That's where I do most of my work and I pull up shadows a fair amount. I've done this for 15 years and various cams. The R has the worst "banding/pattern noise/colour shift" of any camera I used since the 1D2N. 5DIV has none of it. At all. It's an impressive camera for IQ. The R was better for AF and more fun to use but the worse IQ (vs the 5D IV) was the reason I finally sold it (and am now waiting on the R6 II). I could shoot 5DIV however I wanted and never have issue (aside from unreliable AF). But with the R I had to be VERY careful to either nail exposure or overexpose and try to recover highlights instead (not ideal for a digital sensor). The R made me very hesitant to shoot things I would never give a second thought to with the 5DIV.
I attached an image shot at ISO 100 on the EOS R, shadows slider brought up in ACR. There horizontal pattern noise is pretty bad (but it's worse in context with the full image). I have ISO12,800 shots taken with the 5DIV with shadows pulled up and there is nothing even remotely close to this going on.
I hate when people with 0 experience try to tell me that my experience (as a 18 year pro though that is neither here nor there) isn't real or valid. I shot both cams for quite a while, thousands of images, and 3 copies of the EOS R. Pattern noise in shadows existed on the EOS R where it didn't on the 5DIV. You can show line charts all you want but that doesn't change the facts. And the fact that DXO showed that that the IQ from the sensors was not identical (even if the differences were "small") proves that there is a difference. Apparently it's from the signal processors or on sensor autofocus systems from my research.
I find most mirrorless have more of an issue with shadow banding than their DSLR counterparts. I know the newer Nikons had similar issues vs the D750 and D850 sensors. But, most people dont push their image files more than a simple colour grade in LR so they don't notice or care. I think the R3 is better than most because of the BSI stacked sensor so I'm hoping the R6 II will get the same sensor (or similar). Though funny enough, my buddy did a comparison of the 5DIV and his R3 and they were similar with noise but the R3 had some weird circular banding we couldn't explain. It COULD have been the lens (since it was circular) or corrections applied (though I didn't think they affected Raw files). But in either case, that 5DIV file held up shockingly well against the new Canon flagship mirrorless. The R just wouldn't be able to compete.
Ps. the R had another notorious "banding" issue that was eventually solved with firmware. This banding issue was something different entirely.

 

[AlanF]

DxO stated: "Comparing the EOS R”s ISO 2742 against the EOS 5 D Mk IV’s ISO 2995, there’s less than 0.13 EV difference in low-light ISO (Sports), just a 0.3-bit difference in color depth (Portrait) at base, and a difference of less than 0.1 EV at the base ISO of 100 in dynamic range (in other words, both cameras have effectively the same dynamic range)."

Linking TN videos is not helping your case, he has the technical comprehension of a bowling ball.

All of those differences are essentially meaningless, the sensors have effectively identical performance. If you're seeing a real-world difference, there's something else going on, e.g. your R was defective.

We both know that stating measurements without their associated errors makes comparisons pretty meaningless unless the differences are really obvious. I am willing to bet that the standard errors of DxO's measurements are greater than those tiny differences. I wonder what the copy variation is between cameras in terms of DR and S/N?

 

[neuroanatomist]

We both know that stating measurements without their associated errors makes comparisons pretty meaningless unless the differences are really obvious. I am willing to bet that the standard errors of DxO's measurements are greater than those tiny differences. I wonder what the copy variation is between cameras in terms of DR and S/N?

IIRC, DxO at some point in the past indicated a ±1/3 EV error in their measurements (I can't find that statement on their site anymore). So yes, all the differences between the measurements for the 5DIV and R3 are within the error and not differences at all.

 

[stevelee]

Night before last I decided to give some serious thought to ordering the refurbed 5D IV. So I went on line to look at some reviews from the last couple of years, not 5 or 6 years ago. There were even comparisons with the R6 and even the 6D2. Yes, it is a fine camera and a bargain for $1,800, and it is the only logical DSLR upgrade for me. But I decided not to get it, at least just yet. I won't bore you with details unless someone has a specific question. (And none of the charts and graphs were real factors.)

Yesterday morning I went out to shoot Halloween decorations in our neighborhood, as requested by our newsletter editor. The 6D2 worked great using just auto settings. (The exception was a 5-shot HDR in which I wanted details both out in the yard and shaded on the front porch. It was probably an unnecessary precaution. But, hey, the camera did five clicks and Photoshop did all the work, so why not?) And I thought, why am I considering replacing this camera?

Supposedly dynamic range is the Achilles heel of the camera. When I asked here how I could demonstrate that, it was suggested that I try underexposing a black cat by 4 or 5 stops.

I went to the end of the street where the neighbors agreed on a pirate motif for Halloween. I saw some folks adding an octopus to the roof of their porch, and a black cat crawled out the window and walked around it. I tried several shots, but just used auto everything. The cat was not greatly underexposed, but still there is not a lot of detail in the fur. Maybe the 5D IV would do better, but I don't photograph a cat and an octopus on the roof together often enough to affect my buying decisions. The JPEG I'm posting will show even less fur detail.

 

[Michael Clark]

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 wouldn't say the 5D Mark IV autofocus was "very unreliable." I find it very reliable. It just takes more skill to use in a way that lets it know what you want it to focus on. If you correctly tell it where to focus, it is very reliable in my experience.

 

[Michael Clark]

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 Tony Northrup 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).

You do realize the 5D Mark IV has main sensor based Dual Pixel AF so that it can AF in Live View, don't you?

There may be differences in each camera's respective JPEG processing engine, but there's no detectable differences between the raw output of each.

 

[Michael Clark]

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).

That's not unreliability on the part of the camera, that's unreliability on the part of the third party lens! By the way, how do you find the EOS R AF works with third party RF lenses?

 

[Michael Clark]

Linking TN videos is not helping your case, he has the technical comprehension of a bowling ball.

I think that good ole' Tony understands more than he demonstrates in his videos. But he'd rather stir the pot, sensationalize, and get clicks by telling people what they want to hear than present unbiased, correct information. There's no money in the latter.

You've got to be pretty smart to consistently pretend to be dumb in the exact way that will maximize your YouTube income. It's a little like how brilliant Lucille Ball had to be in order to portray someone so dumb in such a funny and likeable way all of the time.

 

[usern4cr]

You can assign a button to do eye AF when in spot AF temporarely, but switching is not possible. It stays in spot AF mode.

i can hit a button for eye af or another for spot af and go back and forth just fine on my R5.