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

[entoman]

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

Yeah, but no thread ever sticks to the original subject, we all go off at a tangent, and try to find something else to discuss.

 

[john1970]

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.


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.

I agree. I can easily foresee internal prototype testing a few different versions being performed 18-24 months in advance of a commercial release date. Maybe we will get a BSI (non-stacked) sensor for the R6II?

 

[Blue Zurich]

Yeah, but no thread ever sticks to the original subject, we all go off at a tangent, and try to find something else to discuss.

In this forum there is no try only do.

 

[David - Sydney]

I'd have to disagree on that one. I've had both. The 5DMkiv is a full-on professional camera that can easily withstand several years of abuse in the form of temperature extremes, high humidity, rain, knocks and bangs. Mine has been bashed about, dropped onto hard surfaces and has 200K actuations, yet still functions as new. I just can't see the R surviving that sort of treatment, although I obviously can't prove it.

I only kept my R briefly, and now have the R5. The latter is better built than the R, but still not as sturdy and bullet-proof as a 5DMkiv.

I agree that my 5Div felt more sturdy but was also heavier so whether it actually is more sturdy is an interesting discussion. I haven't been hearing about R5's hotshoe being damaged easily. I have dropped R5 once and no problems. The exception is the hotshoe on the R5 which seems to be damaged too often.

For actuations, keep in mind that the 5Div is rated at 150k whereas the R5 is 500k. I am certainly going through actuations faster than my 5Div.
Noting that the R5 has mechanical FPS at double the 5Div.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

Sony does have tricks in the EVF to reduce default power usage but Sony's processor does seem to be more efficient in gross terms compared to the R5. Sony doesn't use CFe Type B which are generate a lot of heat (power consumption). I haven't seen a comparison of battery life when only SD card is used.

Canon upped their battery capacity by 14% with the R5/6. Sony have 7% more capacity but have much greater CIPA numbers. I get that CIPA doesn't equal real life for most shooters but it is a direct comparison between models. Canon's issue is processing efficiency overall.
LP-E6N = 1865 mAh
LP-E6NH = 2130 mAh +14%
Sony NP-FZ100 = 2280mAh +7%

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

Canon squeezed in 14% more capacity with the R5/6 LP-E6NH but is still 7% less than the Sony battery.
CIPA differences are >>>7% so the gross comparison is that the issue is Canon's processor efficiency and storage (CFe Type B vs SD/CFe Type A).
Canon's biggest power efficiency gain would be for the Digic Xii to use a smaller nm fab and more SoC like Apple's M1 chip variants. A change to the CFe spec for lower heat generation would also assist greatly.

When I need to use a LP-E6N instead of E6NH, the battery length seems to be much lower than the 14% difference would indicate so maybe there are more efficiencies in the power management as well. It is also likely that my older batteries have seen more cycles and decreased capacity over time.
It is interesting that my DJI M3P batteries are also "intelligent" and have had firmware updates at the same time as controller/drone firmware updates but I have never seen this with Canon batteries.

LP-E6N = 1865 mAh
LP-E6NH = 2130 mAh +14%
Sony NP-FZ100 = 2280mAh +7%

 

[MiJax]

Sony does have tricks in the EVF to reduce default power usage but Sony's processor does seem to be more efficient in gross terms compared to the R5. Sony doesn't use CFe Type B which are generate a lot of heat (power consumption). I haven't seen a comparison of battery life when only SD card is used.

Canon upped their battery capacity by 14% with the R5/6. Sony have 7% more capacity but have much greater CIPA numbers. I get that CIPA doesn't equal real life for most shooters but it is a direct comparison between models. Canon's issue is processing efficiency overall.
LP-E6N = 1865 mAh
LP-E6NH = 2130 mAh +14%
Sony NP-FZ100 = 2280mAh +7%

Thanks for posting, I was under the impression the capacity difference was greater. But this also brings up a point I forgot to mention prior, I'd bet Sony manipulates the tests. The tests include shooting and turning the camera off and then back on for every shot. If a company were too slow to the boot up time and use less power, they could significantly improve the CIPA number, but in regular use the user would likely be unhappy with that tradeoff. I've shot side by side with a Sony A1 user and the batteries didn't have a significant difference at the end of the day. However, note, our cameras weren't configured in a comparative way. Also of note, if you compare how long the R5 and A1 record video on one battery it is very similar.

Again, thanks for clearing up the capacity though, I definitely missed it there.

 

[David - Sydney]

Thanks for posting, I was under the impression the capacity difference was greater. But this also brings up a point I forgot to mention prior, I'd bet Sony manipulates the tests. The tests include shooting and turning the camera off and then back on for every shot. If a company were too slow to the boot up time and use less power, they could significantly improve the CIPA number, but in regular use the user would likely be unhappy with that tradeoff. I've shot side by side with a Sony A1 user and the batteries didn't have a significant difference at the end of the day. However, note, our cameras weren't configured in a comparative way. Also of note, if you compare how long the R5 and A1 record video on one battery it is very similar.

Again, thanks for clearing up the capacity though, I definitely missed it there.

I guess that all OEMs will adjust their base config to better meet the tests. You can certainly increase the EVF refresh rate on the R5 at the detriment of battery life. So far, I haven't felt the need to do it though.
One battery was sufficient for my 5Div for a indoor sports session (maybe 1600 shots). I need 2 batteries for the R5 (closer to 2000 shots). Not a major hassle. I am taking more shots with the R5 due to faster burst.

 

[Chaitanya]

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

EOS R3 - 620 shots from larger battery.
Nikon Z9 - 770
Sony a1 - 530 (on much smaller battery with option to double it via grip).

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).

Sony made a switch to FZ100 series of batteries at one point and in the long run that higher capacity battery(still similarly sized to Canon LP-E6 series) along with improvements in efficiency has helped a lot. In past Canon has changed batteries to improve things and they are generally ruthless about it so not sure why stick with LP-E6 now.

 

[InchMetric]

In France it is even illegal to take photos of the Eiffel Tower at night, because the lighting scheme is copyrighted. That would be impossible in Germany, where you can take photos of anything from a public street.

This IP attorney is doubtful that is true.

 

[Del Paso]

I have never tried a monopod, but at least you can keep a monopod close to your body or even hide it. The argument that somebody could stumble across your monopod and fall could not be used. To be honest I usually use a tripod anyway, because it takes some time until security tells me to stop and by then I already have my photo. At Burj Khalifa security quickly stopped me with my tripod on the crowded side. So I came back six days later from the other side, where hardly any people are. I was able to take photos for half an hour that time before security stopped me again. As a photographer you sometimes have to ignore laws that restrict your freedom to take photos.

In France it is even illegal to take photos of the Eiffel Tower at night, because the lighting scheme is copyrighted. That would be impossible in Germany, where you can take photos of anything from a public street.

France, (Tour Eiffel by night): absolutely correct, but French police is tolerant in case of private use.
Germany, whatever can be seen from a public place: absolutely correct!
Of course, this does not necessarily apply to people, whose right of privacy is protected by law.

 

[TAF]

Why might Canon be ‘rushing’ out an R6M2? Perhaps there are components that are no longer available required for the R6 design, so they‘ve redesigned the internals using more readily available parts.

Expect more of that sort of thing in the coming years in many sectors of the electronics industry.

 

[entoman]

Perhaps there are components that are no longer available required for the R6 design, so they‘ve redesigned the internals using more readily available parts.

Possibly, but I think that this clickbait "rumour" from a very dubious source is pure BS, and that a R6ii is another 2 years away and will have a 24MP or 30MP sensor.

 

[Johnw]

a R6ii is another 2 years away

I 100% agree and I just purchased an R6 last month. No reason for anyone in the market for an R6 to be waiting at this point, the stock on the Mark I barely just became stable lol.

 

[David - Sydney]

Thanks for posting, I was under the impression the capacity difference was greater. But this also brings up a point I forgot to mention prior, I'd bet Sony manipulates the tests. The tests include shooting and turning the camera off and then back on for every shot. If a company were too slow to the boot up time and use less power, they could significantly improve the CIPA number, but in regular use the user would likely be unhappy with that tradeoff. I've shot side by side with a Sony A1 user and the batteries didn't have a significant difference at the end of the day. However, note, our cameras weren't configured in a comparative way. Also of note, if you compare how long the R5 and A1 record video on one battery it is very similar.

Again, thanks for clearing up the capacity though, I definitely missed it there.

I forgot to mention that the Sony battery is ~1.5% larger physically than the Canon battery using gross dimensions but gives a clear message that the battery volumes are pretty much the same.
Battery intelligence may be different of course but the overall issue is not the battery but the downstream power usage in Canon cameras.

 

[MiJax]

I 100% agree and I just purchased an R6 last month. No reason for anyone in the market for an R6 to be waiting at this point, the stock on the Mark I barely just became stable lol.

Yes and no, I definitely wouldn't be waiting for an R6 II, but I might wait for a price drop.
With the R7, something tells me R6's may start gathering on shelves, and if that happens fall-winter sales could start. Still a long shot, but definitely a possibility.

 

[GoldWing]

What about the R1

 

[Shaun Gibbs]

Can't wait for people to put off buying an R6 now while they wait four years for this.

Get real. Three years at the most.

 

[codym90]

There's only a couple things I'd change with my R6 honestly. I'd like just a few more Megapixels honestly. Everything else is more than fine. I'll be excited to see what all specs the Mark 2 would even have. Overall I'm pretty satisfied with my R6.
-Cody McCracken
Boudoir Photography West Virginia

 

[JasonL]

Stacked 30mpx sensor would be phenomenal.