Here are more Canon EOS R6 Specifications [CR2]

[padam]

But my Sony A7R IV with 60mpixel is truely A LOT better for product photography in the studio. The level of detail is simply impressive (given good light and sharp lenses). It allows for way cleaner cutouts and way better retouching. And the possibilites that comes with the room to crop is also very handy for event-photography.
45mpixel is a small step back for me, but I agree that its indeed not important in the real world.

Storage and better PC is no problem though. We use dropbox business with unlimited backup storage. Also big NAS systems with enough space.
Since we used the 1DX II (with ludacrous big files) and now the Lumix S1H (also very big files in 6k) for a lot of video productions, we are totaly used to a lot of massive foldes. Photography is (compared to that) not even a dent in our storage count :-D

I have marked the important thing in bold letters.
Yes, some photographers do benefit from the R5, those probably don't have a problem affording it and they already have the storage system to support it.
But most people probably don't actually need it, are going to be do just as well with the R6. (in the same way most people will do just fine with an A7III over an A7RIV, no question which camera is the more popular one)

I thought we are taking about different things, video is completely different to stills but I feel the same about 8K video.
4K is more than enough, and probably overkill for most things, 1080p should be fine for many, as long as it is as clean as possible, like a Canon C100, and lower-res clean RAW video looks better than higher-res compressed video, but they only offer that in video cameras for now.

I think the a7s vs a7r could be a good exmaple. Though its a truely big gap in resolution here. If we downsample the a7r images to 12mpixel, its likely to look very similar.

If the ISO is high enough, the A7R will smear more compared to the A7S

 

[navastronia]

There is more to it than just graph numbers and point scores.
Looking at actual test images, from ISO 6400 upwards, the 1DX III starts to retain better colour and detail compared to the 5D IV.
I expect the R5 to improve, but when pushing the ISO beyond 10000 (which most people don't actually do), the R6 might still be a bit better.

Do you have any comparison images you could share? I'm interested in your idea, here.

 

[Xavitxaung]

The real question it is... The EOS R6 is it going to become a real rival to the Sony A7III?

 

[navastronia]

If you aren't sure if MP count has a significant impact on low light capability (noise), just see for yourself:

http://[URL]https://www.dpreview.co...1&x=0.21908346372337578&y=0.23348189356344348

[/URL]

Do the images on the right (lower resolution) look better to you then the ones one the left (higher resolution)?

To me, the 5D mk. IV and 1DX mk. II look almost the same at 12800, which is more to my point (above).

 

[navastronia]

will the R6 have 1/8000?

That's a great question. I could see it going either way.

 

[Joules]

If the ISO is high enough, the A7R will smear more compared to the A7S

I am not at all disagreeing with your point that high MP aren't necessary for many use cases.

But these new Canons are unlike anything we've seen before. The R5 throughput is just insane. As long as no pixels are left out during read out, no light should be lost. And if they are based on the same amount of light, images from sensors of the same generation should have the same amount of noise. Both the R6 and R5 appear to have a mode where they read the entire sensor (8K for the R5, oversampled 5K for the R6), the same argument I made for stills should apply. Downsample both to the same resolution / magnification, and the quality should be comparable. Although I'm not sure how temporal noise is affected by resolution. It probably is still beneficial to have a higher resolution for reducing it?

 

[padam]

Do you have any comparison images you could share? I'm interested in your idea, here.

For Canon product reviews I look at popco.net (with Google translate), they are very detailed with plenty of examples, I have taken the test images from there and looked at them and concluded that the 1DX III is indeed better at high ISO.
Looking at dpreview samples, they seem to be more equal, so not sure what's going on there. But here is another guy who have shot with a 5D IV for ages, and claims the 1DX II outperforms it for ISO:

Canon 1D X Mark II - A High ISO King!

Regular readers will know that these days my camera of choice is the Canon 5D Mark IV because I love its versatility. It's not as fast as the 1-Series

dancarrphotography.com

'I would guess that the high ISO performance is roughly 2/3 of a stop, to one full stop better than what I have seen from my 5D Mark IV in the past few years of use.'

 

[rom]

I will stick with my R. I never shoot movie, so don’t care much for these new cameras.
Happy that Canon didn’t do a replacement for the R It’s perfect in it’s own way.

 

[criscokkat]

Everyone's predicting a much higher price for this compared to the 6D Mk II, and I don't think that will be the case. The leaked R5 pricing shows everyone's thoughts on that being significantly more than the 5dMk4 didn't pan out, and I think people are off on this one too.

I think they will be aggressive. I suspect 2499 is the high end kit, with the 24-105mm f4. The 24-240 at 2199 and the 24-105 f4-71 at 1899. (body only at 1699, so the low end kit is half price for lens).

The reason I think they will keep it aggressive: This entices people to buy into a new ecosystem of lenses. The prices above are roughly 100 more than the 6d MKII's initial MSRP. The R5 pricing looks to be the same as the 5d MkIV. People are desperate for a sony like mirrorless solution that is combined with Canon color and Canon Lenses. I suspect that once the initial rush is over with, the street price will drop another 100-200 to be competitive, because Canon wants to get these cameras in as many hands as possible. The market that buys the r5 and r6 are the same people who drive most of their lens sales. Very few of these people already have RF lenses, so they will be buying new lenses at an increased clip compared to people who buy a new d5 body just to put old lenses on. The RP and R will drop in price (again) as well. The RP in particular will be in the same spot that the rebel series used to be. I expect the rp + 24-240 to be in a lot of big box stores this Christmas for 1199 or so. They can continue cranking out the sensor for that at a much higher profit, as the initial run has already paid for the development. People have seen Apple make a lot of money just keeping old production lines going for cheaper price points. Other companies are seeing the advantages of this now too.

 

[Joules]

I have taken the test images from there and looked at them and concluded that the 1DX III is indeed better at high ISO.
Looking at dpreview samples, they seem to be more equal, so not sure what's going on there.

What is crucial for these comparisons is that they are made at the same magnification. So, the images must have identical framing, or in other words, must be Downsampled to the same resolution.

If one compares images at 1:1, a higher resolution image will be magnified further. And yes, that does reveal more noise. But it is an apples to oranges comparison. If you magnify a lower res image the same amount, it will start to look mushy.

At 1:1, a lower resolution image shows less noise, but also less detail. If magnified so that images show the same amount of detail, the shot noise is identical. And if the sensor tech is identical, so is the read noise. So they will look the same for practical purposes.

 

[padam]

What is crucial for these comparisons is that they are made at the same magnification. So, the images must have identical framing, or in other words, must be Downsampled to the same resolution.

If one compares images at 1:1, a higher resolution image will be magnified further. And yes, that does reveal more noise. But it is an apples to oranges comparison. If you magnify a lower res image the same amount, it will start to look mushy.

At 1:1, a lower resolution image shows less noise, but also less detail. If magnified so that images show the same amount of detail, the shot noise is identical. And if the sensor tech is identical, so is the read noise. So they will look the same for practical purposes.

I have looked at EOS R images at very high ISO values and fine details just get smeared away.
It does not matter what magnification you are looking at, they are not there anymore, while they are still showing up on the lower-resolution, but less noisy 1DX III image.
Same with the colour information, once it starts loosing colour or it starts to heavily shift towards one direction, there is no way to get it back.
People tend to overlook these things and just assume downsampling equals everything. These graph tests are quite misleading in that way.
Yes, it does make it equal up to a certain ISO value, but beyond that, probably not. Ymmv.

Again, I never claimed that the R6 is going to be much better than the R5, I wrote it might be a hair better.
I just claimed that the breaking point with the ISO might be reached a little higher.

 

[padam]

Everyone's predicting a much higher price for this compared to the 6D Mk II, and I don't think that will be the case. The leaked R5 pricing shows everyone's thoughts on that being significantly more than the 5dMk4 didn't pan out, and I think people are off on this one too.

2500$ compared to 2000$ with the 6D Mark II is really not much of an increase at all, if we compare the massive jump in features.
It will cost much more with the L kit lens, but there is the cheapo RF 24-105 f/7.1 IS STM which shouldn't cost much extra (maybe 200$).
The numbers you are expecting (dreaming) are way off.

 

[ryebread]

That's a great question. I could see it going either way.

the R6 should have 1/8000,
but the 6D/II does not
and they haven't said anything yet. that is scaring me.

the A7iii and the EosR does have 1/8000 - so I'm guessing the R6 will have it.
otherwise, it's crippled IMO

 

[Joules]

I have looked at EOS R images at very high ISO values and fine details just get smeared away.
It does not matter what magnification you are looking at, they are not there anymore, while they are still showing up on the lower-resolution, but less noisy 1DX III image.
[...]
People tend to overlook these things and just assume downsampling equals everything. These graph tests are quite misleading in that way.

I wasn't talking about any measurements. I linked to some pictures. I don't have access to cameras with different resolutions but the same sensor tech. If you do, and your experience with them contradicts the results from the DPR Studio tool, could you please share them?

I can see how color deteriates with very low light. Especially in the R, since it is essentially continuously being read and probably generating a good bit of heat in the sensor and hence dark current when used in low light (longer exposure time). But I have a hard time believing the detail part is due to the sensor, rather than the method of comparison. Any demonstration of what you are saying (ideally in Form of pictures, as you said) would be highly appreciated.

 

[Joules]

the R6 should have 1/8000,
but the 6D/II does not
and they haven't said anything yet. that is scaring me.

the A7iii and the EosR does have 1/8000 - so I'm guessing the R6 will have it.
otherwise, it's crippled IMO

Another argument that might point to it having it:

The R5 and R6 have the same mechanical shutter rate (12 FPS). So they likely have the same shutter. So, if the R5 has 1/8000 and the R6 doesn't use a lower quality version of that shutter, it should have it.

 

[Stuart]

Is that AF in video mode with touch screen AF area selection?

Also what's High ISO in practice likely to be here ?

 

[BakaBokeh]

This camera is pretty amazing. If we had zero information on the R5 and it just never existed. The R6 and it's specs are mindblowing by themselves. This is the Camera I wanted when Canon came out with the EOS R. Dual Card slots? IBIS? 4K60p? HD120? Hell yes! Hopefully it has no crop and working DPAF in all shooting modes like the R5.

I've grown to love and become very attached to the EOS R in the past half year that I've owned it. I fully intend to buy an R5 and was going to keep the R as a 2nd body. Now, I am very likely going to sell the EOS R and replace it with an R6.

 

[bergstrom]

20MP is lame though.

 

[privatebydesign]

True, there is indeed no difference. But an optimized sensor with lower megapixel count CAN be noteable better.
And these examples are cameras with a rather medium difference in megapixel. The 20mpixel compared to 45mpixel is a bigger gap.
Also the R6 sensor may be build for better high iso performance. Just like the 6D was. So I guess that its liekely that the R6 will perform notable better.

Can you provide an actual real world same generation sensor support of that? I've never seen any.

 

[PhotoRN86]

This sounds like the camera that a Sony A7S3 would have to compete with. Both 4K high sensitivity.

woooow crazy great site thanks!