Canon EOS R6 specifications [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
R6 rumor with 20MP is very strange. none of the possible options makes much sense to me.
A) If it were a video-optimized Sony A7S then it should have been the 8k machine, rather than the R5 (which could have been successful as a hi-rez stills-optimized 5DS successor.)
B) if it were a low-budget 6D series / RP "Mk. II" successor, it should have at least 30 MP (possibly just re-using EOS R sensor one more time).
C) if it were to re-use 1DX III sensor then why not go for a A9 II type action/speed machine?
something is really off with the R6 rumour (specs).
A) If it were a video-optimized Sony A7S then it should have been the 8k machine, rather than the R5 (which could have been successful as a hi-rez stills-optimized 5DS successor.)
B) if it were a low-budget 6D series / RP "Mk. II" successor, it should have at least 30 MP (possibly just re-using EOS R sensor one more time).
C) if it were to re-use 1DX III sensor then why not go for a A9 II type action/speed machine?
something is really off with the R6 rumour (specs).
Upvote
0
A) but you need more than 20MP to shoot 8k
B) or just use the same 26MP 6DII/RP sensor again to keep the price down
C) because the high speed/action camera is reserved for the top end mirrorless
the R6 will be crippled but not to the extent that it won't sell well and Canon knows exactly how to do that. nonetheless, i'm still hoping it gets priced under $2000.
B) or just use the same 26MP 6DII/RP sensor again to keep the price down
C) because the high speed/action camera is reserved for the top end mirrorless
the R6 will be crippled but not to the extent that it won't sell well and Canon knows exactly how to do that. nonetheless, i'm still hoping it gets priced under $2000.
Upvote
0
I agree there's something distinctly odd about the R6 as rumored. It seems to be the worst of several different worlds, with really no features about it that would excite people (other than--perhaps--a very low price, but it seems to me to not even be worth the prices mentioned so far; it'll be obsolete the moment it's released). Not enough resolution to be a video monster (yet otherwise seems to be positioned that way according to some rumors), not really enough resolution to succeed any other camera ("resolution doesn't really matter past this point" or not, marketing would tell them "don't you dare cut the resolution going from one model to the next" and make it stick).
Yet they are supposedly pulling the sensor out of a very specialized action/speed camera--one where resolution was obviously traded for speed, a camera for people who need speed above all else--and sticking it in a body where those things will NOT be taken advantage of--because, as deanmejos pointed out they wouldn't put that stuff in anything other than a flagship camera. So what's the point of using that sensor? In this camera it trades resolution for...nothing at all!
I've basically ignored the R6, thus far, because I strongly suspect that at least 80% of what we think we know about it is baloney, bravo sierra. Therefore I can't know whether this camera will meet my needs. I just know that if everything we think is true, it certainly won't.
So this has the feel of, "There's something important here that we simply do not know yet, that will make it all make sense." Some unrevealed feature that changes everything, some mistaken spec.
One piece of good news is that apparently it will be announced before the R5 hits the stores, so I can wait to decide between the two, in case the R6 ends up surprising me by having a resolution more in line with current sensor technology.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
What if the 20MP sensor the R6 uses is not the same sensor in the 1D X Mark III, but rather the 20MP sensor that was used by the 1D X Mark II? Would a lower cost option make more sense then?
Upvote
0
Not really. You'd still be giving up resolution in going with a sensor that's lower res than anything else at this level...and not getting, in return, the speed that that sensor is designed for. That doesn't change because the sensor you'd be crippling is capable of less speed than the other one.
It would lower Canon's cost, probably (assuming the Mark III sensor is more expensive than the Mark II sensor), but it wouldn't make the camera more worthwhile. So maybe if they do that they could cut the price a bit further, but still, it would be a camera with profoundly uninspiring specs.
After I wrote my post someone did bring up the subject of low light. That, at least, could make some difference (you'd be getting something in exchange for that resolution); but this would be the camera that will be pigeonholed into "low cost, low light" bucket. That might make a difference to others; it won't make any difference to me.
Upvote
0
I raised this somewhere else (not sure if this forum/thread or elsewhere) but what if it's the 1DX III sensor with a different/more basic low-pass filter? There's a remark about the 1DX III having a newly designed low-pass filter for better IQ so if Canon wants to nerf the R6, weakening the IQ is a good place to start. The low MP count of the R6 will not excite people but the 12fps + dual card slots will. Sure, they won't make you a better photographer (nor will it give you better IQ necessarily), but weren't so many people (at least Internet noise) going on about why they're switching away from Canon (to Sony) because the R and RP were slow and not "professional enough" to use for serious work. With all the buzz about dual card slots being "essential", it makes sense for Canon to include them and say "hey, this thing's only got 20MP but we have dual card slots" even if I'm almost sure that one of those will be UHS-I only.
Upvote
0
1DxII sensor readout speed was not anywhere near what is required for a modern mirrorless system. Both R and RP suffered pedestrian FPS speeds and huge EVF latencies due to sensors used in these models being old design DSLR sensors adapted to a mirrorless system.
In my POV, R6 will be marketed with a faster readout sensor. There is plenty of what can be done here in order to maintain a differentiation between product lines.
Single memory card, SD type, 1/4000 max shutter, some video features, limit FPS both mechanical and electronic shutter, remove joystick, sensor resolution to 20-28MP, x-sync speed to 1/180sec
Upvote
0
Canon claims that the 1DXIII sensor with the new low pass filter is equivalent to 24 mp with a conventional filter. If you combine that with a 12fps mechanical shutter, good AF, a couple of card slots, an RF lens mount, small size and the right price, there may be some buyers out there.
Upvote
0
R is a 30MP sensor, RP is what, 26MP? Even with the same technology, they take longer to read out than a 20 MP sensor does. I wouldn't bet the bank that they're the same technology, either. The 1-series digital bodies have always had better sensor performance than their 5-series (and later, 6-series) stablemates with the same approximate resolution. Maybe it is sensor performance, maybe it's more processing power that allows more complex processing?
The 1D X Mark II has 4K 60P and Full HD 120P video with Movie Servo AF via Dual Pixel CMOS sensor. The 5D Mark IV only has 4K30 and FHD60. Maybe the limitation for the 1D X Mark II is due to sensor readout, or maybe it is more related to Canon protecting their Cinema line in 2016 when it was released , as many accused them of doing?
Upvote
0
I think a lot of folks would be interested in a 20MP sensor if it gives better video performance in low light. 4K60 or FHD120 with dual pixel AF (both of which the 1D X Mark II can do) with excellent low light performance would be very attractive. Sony has sold a lot of α7s models with that lo res/low light formula.
12 fps stills isn't too far off the 1D X Mark II at 14 fps, either, which is what that sensor is designed for.
Upvote
0
Frankly, if the R6 has specs inferior to the Sony A7iii, even if it costs less (which I doubt), no one in the right mind would buy it. If the R6 is really using the 1DX Mk II sensor, it must offer equivalent (i.e. uncrippled) performance, to actually make sense. Only having low light superiority would make it a one-trick pony.
Upvote
0
Another piece of the puzzle may be that the 20mp sensor can be a simple way to boost through put and buffer size for action photography. And people have printed large with 1DX cameras for quite a while now, not to mention 5D Mark III ‘s. I am not sure what Canon is trying to do with the R6, but I don’t think they are trying to come up with an A7III knockoff and clearly they are not going after people who need to have a lot of mp’s.
Upvote
0
That's what a lot of folks once said about Dual Pixel CMOS AF ever making it into a Rebel series Canon body.
It happened a scant five years after the 70D introduced Dual Pixel CMOS AF in 2012 when the Rebel T7i/800D was rolled out in 2017.
The first 5/7-series camera with dual card slots was the 7D Mark II in late 2014. It's been five plus years...
Upvote
0
Are we comparing apples to apples though?
Did Canon or anyone else ever used the dual card slot option for a camera that sits at the bottom of prosumer range?
DPAF is an extremely useful feature for non pros: faster focusing and sharper snapshots for the crowd that shoot in live view mode stills or video.
What Is the value of a second card slot to this crowd though? Close to 0 in my experiences.
Upvote
0
lol you realise the D600 or D7000 had the dual card slots for donkey's years and it is there is many other smaller sensor cameras as well, which are getting cheaper every minute.
First it was only in the 1-series 1Ds Mark II, then it also appeared in the 5D Mark III, now the jump is two more generations, so it can easily appear in the EOS R6 as well, considering cameras are getting more and more expensive, so they have to have more features in return.
Just because the camera has two card slots, it does not mean everyone has to use them and on every occasion.
Upvote
0
A7 III was positioned quite a bit higher by SONY in hope to win a competitive edge over Canon by offering a more complete list of options. that in my view.Would you consider the Sony A7iii to be at the bottom of the prosumer range? I quite liked it when i could write images to 1 card and videos to another. Just my 2 cents.
Upvote
0
++++ First it was only in the 1-series 1Ds Mark II, then it also appeared in the 5D Mark III, now the jump is two more generations
A.M.: So your logic is that if something exist in a 1 and 5 series cameras, then it should be introduced into a bottom product line just because they can?
did you said "LOL"? righto. ++++ considering cameras are getting more and more expensive, so they have to have more features in return.
Correct. however these features would have to be appropriate for the target audience.
you would hardly get any Rebel owner to excited by offering a 1/1000s X-Sync. However, such a feature were offered in 5 or 1 series, it would be quite a splash..
+++++ Just because the camera has two card slots, it does not mean everyone has to use them and on every occasion.
no, it does not. However, think what value this would offer to an absolute majority of the product audience. in this instance: pretty much none apart from being a storage compartment for a second memory card..
+++++ lol you realise the D600 or D7000 had the dual card slots for donkey's years and it is there is many other smaller sensor cameras as well, which are getting cheaper every minute.
I do.. and did that made any difference to the NIkon's balance sheets or improved sales of the product in question? nope.. they are nearly wiped out by now..
there is anecdotal evidence of a small group of enthusiast and advanced users that for one or another reason have not traded up for a more professional camera or just happy where they are, but aren't so obsessed with technology, unlike many CR members,...
and lastly, you are seems convinced, that the cost is the issue... the issue is inclusion of features that makes the product unnecessarily complicated if not convoluted. example? Sony camera menu.
Upvote
0