Here is the Canon EOS R6

[scyrene]

There is right, there is enough, there is abundance, and there is too much.

"More than enough" doesn't make any sense, because 'enough' already means: what is needed or more.

Um, 'more than enough' is a common English expression and has been for a long time. It makes sense in the contexts in which it is used

 

[Mike9129]

But then I'd have to pay for expensive trinkets like 8K video that are of ZERO use to me. It's like trying to buy a car in the 90s when the only way to get metallic paint was to buy the Luxe pack with $3000 of accessories.

Canon just can't shake the mindset that the cheaper camera has to be inferior across all specs, rather than providing genuine options and letting the market show its preference.

Theres is the 5ds/5dsr if thats a massive concern?

I appreciate that
1) 20mp is good enough for most things
2) its not suitable for absolutely everything

with these two things in mind, there is a whole range of cameras to suit everyone's needs. Maybe its just the R6 isn't the one for you?

 

[scyrene]

Canon just can't shake the mindset that the cheaper camera has to be inferior across all specs, rather than providing genuine options and letting the market show its preference.

Yes, the most succesful camera company of the 21st century definitely doesn't understand the market as well as you, Random Internet Person.

 

[Th0msky]

The negatives about the R6 are not that big of a deal to me.

• No top LCD/Dial. I can live with the fixed mode dial, but I really like the implementation in the EOS R. I think the only tradeoff is the slight change in ergonomics. I've got the EOS R/R5 method ingrained by now... so will just have to remember to twist this separate mode dial on the R6.
• Inferior Bluetooth radio. Don't think I use the smartphone app enough for this to bother me. If the R5 turns out to be much more usable than we are used to, I might change my mind on this.
• 20MP resolution. Perfectly happy with 20MP. Media stays digital so no prints, and I don't do heavy cropping. Also, it's right around that size where it could use the full sensor where there would be no crop in video. Although it does appear that there will be oversampling from 5K. So maybe they could've squeezed a few more MP's in there if they were going to oversample it anyway. All that said, I still plan to get an R5 so if for some reason I feel like I need more resolution... then I'll just use the R5
• No RAW video. I will actually shoot in IPB most of the time. And then there's the R5 if RAW is needed.

The positives of the R6 over the EOS R are overwhelmingly awesome for my use case

• In Body Image Stabilization, and available in all recording formats. I expect a lot more keepers for photo and video. Also, the more I can reduce using a tripod or a gimbal the better.
• 4K60P. This would be a lot more impressive if the R5 didn't steal all the headlines. This would have been the first Full frame uncropped 4K60p hybrid camera.
• FHD120P. I would almost never use the HD720p @120 in all previous Canon cameras because it was just too soft and it's only manual focus.
• No Crop in all video formats. Feels so liberating to not have to use workarounds when crop comes in to play.
• Dual UHS-II Card Slots. I'm fine with one card, but I find dual card slots convenient. I don't use one to backup the other. I use it to conveniently keep shooting once one card fills up.
• Better EVF. Resolution is better, but hoping for less lag.
• 12/20 FPS Shutter as opposed to the R's 8FPS (5 in servo)
• 10-bit internal (I think). The EOS R records 8-bit internal, but can record 10 bit with an external recorder.
• Newer AF technologies. Similar to R5. Animal AF. Head AF, I assume, is not the elimination of Eye AF, but I suspect the AF will stay on the head when it loses the eye. So in instances where your subject spins around it should lock on the back of the head. And DPAF will be available in high frame rate mode!
• Zebras. I was fine without it, ignoring blown highlights for the sake of properly exposed subjects. But I will definitely use it going forward.
• Better Battery. This is assuming the newer high capacity battery is only compatible with the R5/R6. Point is moot if it happens to be backward compatible with older cameras.

Such an awesome camera.

finally someone who really understands what is important in this camera and where canon also focusses on (imo)
For a videographer myself this video offers so much for such a good price.

 

[ahsanford]

3) If Canon releases a good vertical grip with the R6, what's to stop most shooters from using it instead of the (eventual) R1?

...because there are a dozen reasons why a 1-series poops all over a 6-series camera.

But if you want a specific one, I'm guessing that for stills the R6's AF and 20 fps mode will not have many bells and whistles attached to it. Similarly for video, one imagines the R1 will dunk on the R6 in some significant way.

- A

 

[AccipiterQ]

Zebras?

 

[bbb34]

Um, 'more than enough' is a common English expression and has been for a long time. It makes sense in the contexts in which it is used

That is true, but English has to offer more than enough beautiful words that are shorter and more distinct than this expression. I am more than enough fed up with people using it more than enough.

 

[Joules]

Zebras?

Striped donkeys

 

[Sporgon]

20mp is good enough for professional wedding, press, and sports photographers, and big enough to print at 16x12 inches at over 300dpi.

I find it funny that people apparently "need" 30+ megapixels when most of their workflow ends with posts on social media.

Because it's what modern digital photography has become to many people, looking at images at 100% on a computer screen and marvelling at the detail; literally not seeing the whole picture, a sort of modern day inversion of the old saying "never mind the quality feel the width".

You're quite right in that 20mp is more than enough to create really quite large pictures, certainly larger than most people will ever produce, and even if you did you run into the issue of viewing distance, where you can't see the extra detail, if there is any anyway, without putting your nose up against the print. Let's face it, 20 mp is actually quite high resolution anyway.

Greater mp is useful for severe cropping and still being able to produce huge output sizes. Other than that it's back to the 100% viewing on computer.

I think the R6 is pretty attractive at 20mp. And who's going to need to crop in with the new 800/11 lenses ?

 

[herein2020]

That's nice. Now tell that to the services offering prints for sale. They don't let you. I don't know how many million times I have to repeat myself. This isn't about printing your own poster at your fine art print store. This is about printing for sale. Not for gigs, not for yourself. You can't print anything larger than 15 inch with 20mp. It won't be accepted. It's called quality standards. It may be enough for you. It's not for most print services. 15-16 inches is the most you can do with 20mp. And that's nothing.

You are talking about a niche scenario for which there are plenty of other camera bodies to choose from. I don't understand your rants about a camera that will meet the needs of probably 95% of camera users; if you are in the remaining 5% then just don't buy it. There are many camera bodies that I knew didn't fit the use cases that I feel I will encounter so I didn't buy them, I also didn't go sign up on their forums and rant about how they did not meet my needs.

If you are actually creating that many large format fine detail prints on a regular basis then clearly this is the wrong camera body for you. If you are only very rarely creating such works of art then this camera could possibly still be for you and you could simply rent a higher MP body when projects that required that level of detail came along.

The 5DS/R is dirt cheap right now, renting is an option, the R5 is 45MP, the S1R is 48MP....get whatever tool you feel will meet your needs...but ranting about tools that don't make no sense at all.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I do not get it, how low light and hi DR exclude each other. In the past these have mutually gone up. Both depend on processor speed which extracts data out of sensor.

Neither depends on the processor speed, except for the edge cases with high speed shooting.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Is it not the case that for sensors of the same generation, of the same physical size but different resolutions, that outputting still images to the same dimensions (i.e. printing or viewing the whole image at the same size), none of the disadvantages of smaller pixels are visible? I.e. the issues with diffraction, motion blur, etc are only greater with a higher resolution sensor when viewing 100% because you are magnifying them more? I take your point about losing a little bit of light gathering area by subdividing the sensor more but in practice that seems not to make a noticeable difference. A lot of people seem to cling to the belief that 'lower res = better high ISO' but there's precious little evidence of it, for stills.

With regard to phone cameras, surely the big issue is that the sensors are very much smaller, so they gather much less light overall.

It is simply a trade-off: you can only utilize the potential of high MP sensors if you can get the image sharp and not too noisy on the pixel level. Otherwise you get about the same results like with a sensor with less pixels, smaller files and less energy consumption of you computer (turned mostly into heat). I think this "otherwise" is quite often the case when people shoot with their high MP cameras, in particular for posting on Instagram But MP count IS a marketing tool, that's why you can get smartphones with stellar MP numbers. So I am amazed that Canon risks something with the R6. Question is whether rationality is a good selling point, in particular in these crazy times

 

[RickWagoner]

What? No not even in the same league other than FPS.

The 7D2 is so popular because of its speed, build and pixel density. It puts 18MP onto the area that the R6 puts 9.

In response the R6 brings... Speed. One out of three ain't good.

It's not about cropping on facial hair, it's about pixels on duck when even big whites with TC don't fill the frame. This isn't fashion photography where you can take a step nearer the subject to full the frame.

99.8% of 7d2 buyers never needed the true build quality of the 7D2 though, hell a 70-90D can withstand most of what the common 7d2 owner throws at it. Pixel density not as important as the extra "gain" being a crop. Speed in the AF was and even still is 7D2's golden ticket, we need to see if the R5 and R6 will have the servo speed though, there is a lot more you can do easily on a mirrorless AF than on a SLR. One thing the R6 won't have is the depth of AF customization the 7d2 has, but then again how many people owning a 7d2 really took advantage of it anyway? Rent a 90D and give it a shot, you will be surprised on how you don't need a 7d2 these days esp if you're not really dialing in the AF deep settings on the 7d2 to begin with. If the R6 has the AF of the R5 it won't be all that bad..

 

[gruhl28]

Why is there a dedicated “Rate” button? And the Set button looks crooked, makes me wonder if these are real pics or mockups.

 

[herein2020]

Why is there a dedicated “Rate” button? And the Set button looks crooked, makes me wonder if these are real pics or mockups.

My 5DIV has that too, its a waste of a button in my opinion and I have never used it...but some photographers swear by it, they use it in their workflow to more quickly cull throw aways. I do think on a body like the R6 with fewer buttons that one should have been an assignable function button (maybe it still is) but I agree, I found it odd for them to waste such precious real estate on a rate button. All will be revealed Thursday...not much longer to wait.

 

[bergstrom]

Why is it a joke?

for the price you are paying, maybe at least 25-30mp

 

[Jasonmc89]

for the price you are paying, maybe at least 25-30m

The camera has some serious strong points - the FPS, it’s full frame, video capabilities and so on.. it’s a decent price to pay for all that in my opinion.

 

[Franklyok]

Neither depends on the processor speed, except for the edge cases with high speed shooting.

Empirically ... disagree. Smaller pixel count enables processor to suck more DR out of sensor, and do some noise removal ninja actions. Is this theory valid, not sure.

Wondering if they could just increase cache buffer size, spend more processor time on buffered data. I do not care about so much 20 fps. 1 fps and spend 20x time on sensor raw, DGO , that would be great, umm , no ?

And I predict R5 will come out with 2x digic 10 processors. Suppose R5 will have "crippled light meter" compared to 1dx line, that's all.

 

[Joules]

Empirically ... disagree. Smaller pixel count enables processor to suck more DR out of sensor, and do some noise removal ninja actions. Is this theory valid, not sure.

For JPEG, yes. But who talks about DR in a JPEG? Usually if you are concerned with DR, your dealing with RAW. And by the time the sensor data is in digital Form that a processor can deal with, it's DR is already set in stone.

 

[[email protected]]

But canon regularly repurposes sensors but with different microlenses(which is what I think
this will be) and calls them new

In fact, the most common Canon behavior is to repurpose older sensors by changing the microlenses, and then call them "*all* new."
This could be a re-warmed 6D sensor, the new 1D sensor, or something completely different. In my mind, this is the very crux of whether this is a useful b-unit camera versus the R5.