Canon EOS R6 Mark II – Here are some more specifications

[John Wilde]

What I don't get is why so many people purchased the camera, with its known shortcomings, and then are blaming the product. I knew everything when I bought my R5, which is why I couldn't care less about the hundreds of overheating videos in the months following launch. If the R6 didn't suit your needs, why buy it?

For video-first people, Canon now has the R5 C. It's fatter than the R5, because of the included fan.

 

[SHAMwow]

"affordable" ??

I really hope you're kidding, but I so want to hear what you're going to say. If you don't think that camera is affordable for what you are getting, then it isn't for you. But maybe this sub is just like the subreddit where people just want to play collector or gearhead, or whatever it is. You legit think this camera is too expensive? When before this camera would cost you $6k. Please explain.

 

[koenkooi]

I really hope you're kidding, but I so want to hear what you're going to say. If you don't think that camera is affordable for what you are getting, then it isn't for you. But maybe this sub is just like the subreddit where people just want to play collector or gearhead, or whatever it is. You legit think this camera is too expensive? When before this camera would cost you $6k. Please explain.

That camera would be great value for money, but it might still not be affordable.

 

[stevelee]

That camera would be great value for money, but it might still not be affordable.

That’s like what I think about the Fujifilm GFX 100S. For $6K, it seems like a bargain to me. I would sort of like to have one, since I decided that it would be the best way for me to upgrade from my DSLR. And as for affordable, I do have enough lying around in checking accounts to get it and some lenses. But unless I suddenly make an impulse order late some night, I am not inclined to buy it. Given the uses I have for my pictures, I don’t see how the camera would really make any real difference to my photography other than being sort of fun to have. And I doubt that I would take that many more landscapes after the novelty wore off.

But there is a real issue of affordability. With that amount of resolution, I would want a much bigger printer. My travel photos with my G5X II and earlier pocketable models look great printed on 13” x 19” paper as it is, and my DSLR can do better than that. But the real expense would be for a much larger house to have enough wall space for those giant prints. So given what real estate prices are around here these days, I really can’t afford the 100S. Everything is relative.

 

[Del Paso]

That’s like what I think about the Fujifilm GFX 100S. For $6K, it seems like a bargain to me. I would sort of like to have one, since I decided that it would be the best way for me to upgrade from my DSLR. And as for affordable, I do have enough lying around in checking accounts to get it and some lenses. But unless I suddenly make an impulse order late some night, I am not inclined to buy it. Given the uses I have for my pictures, I don’t see how the camera would really make any real difference to my photography other than being sort of fun to have. And I doubt that I would take that many more landscapes after the novelty wore off.

But there is a real issue of affordability. With that amount of resolution, I would want a much bigger printer. My travel photos with my G5X II and earlier pocketable models look great printed on 13” x 19” paper as it is, and my DSLR can do better than that. But the real expense would be for a much larger house to have enough wall space for those giant prints. So given what real estate prices are around here these days, I really can’t afford the 100S. Everything is relative.

Please stop mentioninig the Fuji GFX 100S.
I'm having hard times fighting my GAS.

 

[AlanF]

Please stop mentioninig the Fuji GFX 100S.
I'm having hard times fighting my GAS.

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

 

[SHAMwow]

That’s like what I think about the Fujifilm GFX 100S. For $6K, it seems like a bargain to me. I would sort of like to have one, since I decided that it would be the best way for me to upgrade from my DSLR. And as for affordable, I do have enough lying around in checking accounts to get it and some lenses. But unless I suddenly make an impulse order late some night, I am not inclined to buy it. Given the uses I have for my pictures, I don’t see how the camera would really make any real difference to my photography other than being sort of fun to have. And I doubt that I would take that many more landscapes after the novelty wore off.

But there is a real issue of affordability. With that amount of resolution, I would want a much bigger printer. My travel photos with my G5X II and earlier pocketable models look great printed on 13” x 19” paper as it is, and my DSLR can do better than that. But the real expense would be for a much larger house to have enough wall space for those giant prints. So given what real estate prices are around here these days, I really can’t afford the 100S. Everything is relative.

See I really like your breakdown of this, I've just accepted for a while that affordable is a relative term rather than a set number from some arbitrary consensus. I think part of the problem I have with people calling Canon's latest offerings "too expensive" is that I think their perspective is that they should be able to own every camera, or at least have access to every feature. And I just don't feel that way. To me you either need the speed and video of the R6, or you can look at their lower full-frame/crop offerings.

A different conversation would be the RF lenses. I think there is some more nuance to be had debating those prices and how they directly relate to the pricing of the camera bodies.

 

[SilverBox]

I would assume the R1 would have to be available spring 2024 the latest in order to have them out for the Summer Olympics. Maybe by fall/winter 2023 we would be getting some reliable cr3 specs?
I think it would also be strategic to wait until the last second before the Olympics because Canons competition is due for an A9iii and maybe an A1ii, and if they can time it to release after Sony does, then they can make sure they have features to pull ahead of Sony's latest feature list at release.

If the R6ii ends up using a variation of the R3 stacked sensor, maybe part of the R1 sensor development is a variation for the R5ii?
From my manufacturing background, streamlining manufacturing processes does create a lot of manufacturing savings.
I am not a fortune teller, but I think it would be more strategic to try and get both R6ii and R5ii out next year and maybe keep the camera cycles on a 3-year refresh. The only issue is if they don't have the R1 sensor down packed yet in order to design it for an R5ii.
The R6 and R5 did a great job of bringing Canon to the mirrorless table competitively and with the R3 and R1, I think that technology would be the trickle down to the R6ii and R5ii.
The only other outcome I can see is the R5ii released maybe fall of 2024 in order to try and space out the bodies. But with Sony's A7Rv being released this week, it would mean Canon is releasing their response to that line in 2 years. This is what leads me to believe it would make more sense and be more strategic to try and get the R5ii out next year with the R6ii.
Having a great product is one thing, but business is a very competitive market and the moment you slouch, someone else pulls ahead.
Technology is advancing at exponential rates these days and I think we will be seeing faster refreshes from all the camera manufacturers.

In a certain respect we could consider the R5c to have taken the place in the timeline that we might have expected from a mark ii. If the official R6ii announcement is this winter, with shipments in early 2023, I could see them doing one of their development announcements for the R1 in the summer of 2023. Should be interesting!

 

[stevelee]

Please stop mentioninig the Fuji GFX 100S.
I'm having hard times fighting my GAS.

The leaves here are well on their way to be really pretty. I figure that will be the big challenge to my avoiding buying the 100S. Late some night when my inhibitions are down and I see the 20–35mm zoom in stock, I could do the few clicks needed to order. Fortunately, buying a bigger house would take more effort.

I had email from Apple yesterday that my Apple Card credit limit has been raised. Luckily, I can’t think of anything I want. They do make it easy to spend thousands of dollars with just a few clicks, and give you plenty of time to pay with no interest. A while back I decided to buy a yellow watch band and didn’t find anything cheap on line that I liked, so I ordered one from Apple. I failed to opt out of installment payments, so I’m paying $4 a month for the band.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Please stop mentioninig the Fuji GFX 100S.

I could use some R5 S rumors

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Good for birding

The GFX 100S would be about my last choice for birding

 

[Del Paso]

I could use some R5 S rumors

Me too!

 

[Ozarker]

The GFX 100S would be about my last choice for birding

I think their longest focal length is 120mm? Not good for birding, that's for sure. Heck, that's equivalent to ff 70mm? I'm not sure. 120mm/1.7?

If I were wealthy and they had a 1200mm, I'm in. Haha

 

[stevelee]

The GFX 100S would be about my last choice for birding

They don’t have a long lens, and if they did, there is a .79x crop factor on the focal length, so wrong way. People go to smaller sensors for more “reach.” I don’t chase around flying birds, and if I did I might put my tele zoom on my old Rebel. For landscapes, I tend to be slow and deliberative, maybe bracketing exposure and focus. So the 100s would be fine for that. I’d still use my DSLR for most other things, and just have wide angle lenses for the Fuji. As it is, my 16–35mm zoom is great for now. It would get much less use if I had the Fuji, I imagine.

 

[AlanF]

I think their longest focal length is 120mm? Not good for birding, that's for sure. Heck, that's equivalent to ff 70mm? I'm not sure. 120mm/1.7?

If I were wealthy and they had a 1200mm, I'm in. Haha

It's not equivalent to 72mm in terms of reach. What determines reach is focal length combined with pixel size. The pixel size size of the GFX100 is the same as that as a 24 Mpx, APS-C camera. So the reach of a 120mm on the GFX100 is equivalent to that of a ~200mm on an R3. The field of view of the lens on the GFX100 is equivalent to 0.79 x 120mm = 95mm on an R3.

 

[stevelee]

I think their longest focal length is 120mm? Not good for birding, that's for sure. Heck, that's equivalent to ff 70mm? I'm not sure. 120mm/1.7?

If I were wealthy and they had a 1200mm, I'm in. Haha

They do have a $3,300 250mm prime (<200mm eq.) and a 100–200mm zoom, but still nothing for flying birds.

 

[AlanF]

They don’t have a long lens, and if they did, there is a .79x crop factor on the focal length, so wrong way. People go to smaller sensors for more “reach.” I don’t chase around flying birds, and if I did I might put my tele zoom on my old Rebel. For landscapes, I tend to be slow and deliberative, maybe bracketing exposure and focus. So the 100s would be fine for that. I’d still use my DSLR for most other things, and just have wide angle lenses for the Fuji. As it is, my 16–35mm zoom is great for now. It would get much less use if I had the Fuji, I imagine.

The crucial factor in determining the reach of a lens is not the size of the sensor but the size of the individual pixels. The crop factor of 0.79 is meaningless by itself - all it does is give you the relative field of view to 135 - see my last post.

 

[AlanF]

They do have a $3,300 250mm prime (<200mm eq.) and a 100–200mm zoom, but still nothing for flying birds.

To follow my last mail, a 250mm prime on the GFX100 will give you the reach of a 400mm on an R3 and the field of view of a 200mm lens on it. That's like having a 200-400mm zoom lens with prime lens IQ at every focal length. That might be your last choice of lens for flying birds, but I could use it. Think of how easy it is to track a bird with a 200mm lens and yet have the resolution of a 400mm.

 

[Del Paso]

To follow my last mail, a 250mm prime on the GFX100 will give you the reach of a 400mm on an R3 and the field of view of a 200mm lens on it. That's like having a 200-400mm zoom lens with prime lens IQ at every focal length. That might be your last choice of lens for flying birds, but I could use it. Think of how easy it is to track a bird with a 200mm lens and yet have the resolution of a 400mm.

Didn't think of that, a convincing argument.
You just "reloaded" my GAS, but not my account...

 

[Ozarker]

It's not equivalent to 72mm in terms of reach. What determines reach is focal length combined with pixel size. The pixel size size of the GFX100 is the same as that as a 24 Mpx, APS-C camera. So the reach of a 120mm on the GFX100 is equivalent to that of a ~200mm on an R3. The field of view of the lens on the GFX100 is equivalent to 0.79 x 120mm = 95mm on an R3.

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.