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

[sanj]

Misinformation is never useful.

From the Eiffel Tower website:


It's like any copyright, you can use the images but you cannot profit from them without paying a fee.

From a family trip to Paris several years ago:
View attachment 205417
EOS 1D X, TS-E 17mm f/4L, 6.0 s or 0.8 s, f/11 or f/9, ISO 400

The OP is a professional. And he is taking photos for commercial purposes it seems. (Without permission, it seems.)

 

[Jethro]

I honestly don't know why CR1s are even a thing on this site. Anyone could make something up which seems remotely plausible, and BAM...we have a CR1.

Because ... it's a rumours site. At least it's a site that has actual ratings - which in this case mean:

[CR0] – Basically a joke
We don’t post these types of things very often, unless we see other sites posting something that is completely untrue and will never happen.

[CR1] – Plausible information, but from an unconfirmed source
This is information we deem as “possible”. However, the information comes from an unknown or anonymous source, so we cannot confirm its authenticity.

Obviously this one was considered 'plausible' but was unconfirmed.

 

[makiofai]

Not worth to waste time to wait for such camera, 24M pixel still using in 2 years later. Too behind with the mainstream. It's better to think about to change system rather than just wait the older high-end tech to lay down onto the lower series.

 

[Jethro]

Not worth to waste time to wait for such camera, 24M pixel still using in 2 years later. Too behind with the mainstream. It's better to think about to change system rather than just wait the older high-end tech to lay down onto the lower series.

I think that would be the best thing for you to do, really.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I agree that the R7 is more like 90D but Canon received all the market input going from 7Dii to 90D/M6ii they needed to justify if it was the right move.
A R7 like you describe would be priced above the R6 and maybe Canon didn't think that it would have sold so many.

Assuredly the 90D was the better selling model. Bug maybe call it the R9 to leave yourself some room in the lineup for bigger bodies. Heck even just making the R and RP the R7 and R8.

 

[AlanF]

I would need to see your images to deem them acceptable or not ....

The concluding remark to your post to which I replied was:

The ones walking about with a 100-400/500 just get closer to fill the frame and if the frame isn’t filled with that then no amount of cropping is going to make for an acceptable image.

which means that any amount of cropping is going to make an image unacceptable. The nub of my post was to point out that that was the inescapable conclusion from your sweeping generalization. There is no need for you to see my images to deem them acceptable or not - you have already stated in advance that they or any cropped image would not be acceptable.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

The concluding remark to your post to which I replied was:

which means that any amount of cropping is going to make an image unacceptable. The nub of my post was to point out that that was the inescapable conclusion from your sweeping generalization. There is no need for you to see my images to deem them acceptable or not - you have already stated in advance that they or any cropped image would not be acceptable.

That is incorrect, you can not judge an image until you have seen it while you can also make the correct statement that is you are too far away(in this case, not filling the frame) cropping isn't going to fix the image. But again, a holy war between people that find cropping acceptable and those that'll never crop would not be productive as it has been done to death here and elsewhere.

 

[AlanF]

That is incorrect, you can not judge an image until you have seen it while you can also make the correct statement that is you are too far away(in this case, not filling the frame) cropping isn't going to fix the image. But again, a holy war between people that find cropping acceptable and those that'll never crop would not be productive as it has been done to death here and elsewhere.

I am afraid you are not getting my message. Of course you can't judge an image until you have seen it. But, your sweeping generalization that "if the frame isn’t filled with that then no amount of cropping is going to make for an acceptable image." is saying the complete opposite of that - you are judging in advance without seeing it that an image is unacceptable because it is cropped. I have stated that clearly 3 times and will say it no more.

 

[Sporgon]

Do you a link at hand for London? I took several shots of the Christmas lights of a tripod in 2019. Back then, there were several people using a tripod. And I’m talking about regents street and Oxford circus.

This year, I visited London a week before the coronation jubilee. And again, there were lots of people using a tripod.

But it’s good to know such restrictions exist. Especially for NY I’d considered an upgrade to an IBIS camera.

There’s aren’t laws forbidding tripods as such, but there are rules or restrictions in many areas where someone decides a tripod could be a ‘nuisance’. Many churches and cathedrals forbid tripod use for instance, another example that comes to mind are the walk walks on Lincoln castle.

 

[Sporgon]

Not really! The R6 will still have a plastic body,

Not sure; at some time I think the R6 will move to a mag alloy shell to try and persuade people to trade up.

 

[entoman]

An interesting thought but we don't have any firm evidence to support it.
You could also say the same for the 5Div which is still on sale at a price that is way above the R. Besides OVF/EVF and battery life, I don't see that price premium being justified.

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.

 

[Sporgon]

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.

Canon have to save something back to entice you to the R5II when it appears

 

[Inspired]

Boy I hope they give us 24mp with the top LCD screen that should have been included in the mk1 but wasn't.

 

[KT]

Fuji offers the cheapest ever stacked sensor for $2500 and that's in APS-C format. Going full-frame, the cheapest stacked sensor will be the Nikon Z9 at $5500. It's a bit unrealistic to expect Canon to take the R3 sensor anywhere below $4K which is way above the R6 price range.

If they are truly considering a boosted and refreshed R6 II, I would think they are more likely to cannibalize other features from the R3 such as AF and hot shoe, etc.. but not the sensor.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Fuji offers the cheapest ever stacked sensor for $2500 and that's in APS-C format. Going full-frame, the cheapest stacked sensor will be the Nikon Z9 at $5500. It's a bit unrealistic to expect Canon to take the R3 sensor anywhere below $4K which is way above the R6 price range.

If they are truly considering a boosted and refreshed R6 II, I would think they are more likely to cannibalize other features from the R3 such as AF and hot shoe, etc.. but not the sensor.

The same wishful thinking is on the Nikon side with people thinking the Z6iii and Z7iii and all future Nikon cameras will have stacked sensors. Stacked sensors are monstrously expensive, they are what'll set apart the flagships for a decade.

 

[AlanF]

Fuji offers the cheapest ever stacked sensor for $2500 and that's in APS-C format. Going full-frame, the cheapest stacked sensor will be the Nikon Z9 at $5500. It's a bit unrealistic to expect Canon to take the R3 sensor anywhere below $4K which is way above the R6 price range.

If they are truly considering a boosted and refreshed R6 II, I would think they are more likely to cannibalize other features from the R3 such as AF and hot shoe, etc.. but not the sensor.

The Sony A9 II is FF stacked sensor and cheaper than the Z9. I don’t know what you mean by giving it the R3 AF?

 

[neuroanatomist]

The Sony A9 II is FF stacked sensor and cheaper than the Z9. I don’t know what you mean by giving it the R3 AF?

For tracking fast subjects, the R3 has the advantage of the AF system sampling the sensor at twice the frequency of other cameras with the same basic AF system. The faster sampling is possible because of the stacked sensor.

 

[AlanF]

For tracking fast subjects, the R3 has the advantage of the AF system sampling the sensor at twice the frequency of other cameras with the same basic AF system. The faster sampling is possible because of the stacked sensor.

What I didn't understand was that he said it was unrealistic for Canon to put the R3 stacked sensor in the R6 (II) but wanted it to have the AF of the R3. The R3 also has a more powerful battery, which in the 1D series drives the AF faster, another difference.

 

[Chaitanya]

Fuji offers the cheapest ever stacked sensor for $2500 and that's in APS-C format. Going full-frame, the cheapest stacked sensor will be the Nikon Z9 at $5500. It's a bit unrealistic to expect Canon to take the R3 sensor anywhere below $4K which is way above the R6 price range.

If they are truly considering a boosted and refreshed R6 II, I would think they are more likely to cannibalize other features from the R3 such as AF and hot shoe, etc.. but not the sensor.

BSI sensors certainly are not that expensive, Fuji XT30 mk II a sub $1000 camera has BSI sensor while only Canon camera with BSI sensor(in this case stacked) is R3. We can at the very least wish for BSI sensor with R6 replacement.

 

[adrian_bacon]

Keep the same body and controls. Swap in the sensor, focus system, and hot shoe from the R3. Retain compatibility with the same battery grip as the R6. That would be enough if the goal is to maximize the performance while keeping the price attractive.
Of course, I would also appreciate a higher performance EVF and screen, but not having those would not be a deal-breaker for me. I'd still upgrade ASAP.

I'd love to see this. Just take the R3 sensor as is and put it in the body of an R6 with the current R6 body and change the hotshoe over to the new accessory shoe, with maybe minor tweaks to the firmware for functionality along with a bit better heat management for the video shooters. Keep the price the same. We get a bit more resolution, way more dynamic range, better video performance, but otherwise it's the same "entry level" event, concert, sports camera.

I'd drop the R and just put the R sensor with maybe a couple tweaks into the RP with maybe minor tweaks for an RP update if they want to retain the entry level full frame. If not, then drop the RP and figure out where the R users are going to go, or release a full frame replacement (R8, who knows) in the $1500 to $2000 range with the R5 sensor and the R5 gets a new sensor in the ~60MP range, then an R5r also gets released with at least 12000x8000 pixels, though at this stage, anything more than 6000x4000 really is to address specific usage scenarios because 20-30MP covers the vast majority of resolution needs that most of us actually need. I know we all want more resolution, but really, unless you're printing really huge (almost nobody), or doing extensive post work (again, niche use), for general use photography, how much more resolution do you really need? I'd almost rather see Canon standardize on a handful of resolutions and work to optimize them for the best performance, then differentiate their camera line with features and functionality/form factor. Having a whole pile of different sensors is expensive to manufacture, get it down to 2, maybe 3 full frame and at most two crop sensors. Right now they have no less than 5 different full frame sensors (in terms of resolution), and at least 4 or 5 unique crop sensors. That's a lot of chip making overhead.