R6 - 1st Impressions

[KKCFamilyman]

The 4k ipb video is better than the RP 1080p. As for the RP, i feel it starts more detailed and stays there. But in any event iso 6400 and above have noise. The R6 just maintains better fidelity than the RP. I will try to find a pic to compare.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

The yellow shirt of my daughter is the closest I could reproduce all settings equal. It is the sooc jpeg. The second is the RP. Only difference is the f is 3.5 vs 4. Welcome to thoughts but I think the R6 in most cases retains more detail but agree it seems like properly exposed iso 100-800 seem to have the edge going to the RP.

 

[dwarven]

Image quality is ok, the camera can focus great so the images will be sharp but there was a a lot less detail than I'm used to. For anyone saying that the image quality is on par with the 6DMk II or 5D MkIV that just isn't the case I'm sorry.

I'm disputing this. I've downloaded RAW files from the R6 and they look quite good. Better at higher ISOs than any other camera to date that I've downloaded RAW files for. Possibly some user error happening? I don't mean to insult, but that is quite a statement you've made.

 

[privatebydesign]

Personally I see a similar amount of noise, thought the 6D II is the 'worst' without question. There is unmistakably more detail in the 5D IV but the differences after optimal processing are not going to be large, indeed if you aren't cropping then I think they would all be comparable at normal output sizes.

My personal rating would be low to high:
6D II
1DX II
R6
5D IV
But they are certainly 'on par' with each other.

 

[privatebydesign]

It's funny because the OOC jpegs are way different results to me. But that is probably just the way they are being handled, do DPR use OOC jpegs or are they Adobe rendered 'OOC' jpegs? I think the later so not very representative of what you might actually get OOC.

I'd go worst to best:
R6
6D II
5D IV
1DX II

 

[dwarven]

Hmm, I had a different take. For example, even the 5D IV starts to fall apart before the R6 in this scene (granted, only a small difference). I don't know anyone who shoots seriously at 12k ISO, so 6400 seems a little more reasonable.

 

[RickD]

Been playing with mine for around a week now, and I'm impressed with everything so far, and I haven't even tested out the animal AF yet. But then I'm coming from a T4i, so I guess it'd be hard not to be.

Attached a picture I took today. Not the best photographically, but definitely resolving far more detail than I'm used to. First Image is a Lightroom jpeg export of a RAW file with only LR's lens profile correction and remove CA applied. No other adjustments. Second one is a screen grab at 100% zoom, after processing.



One thing I did notice, is that the RAW files seem to be smaller than my T4i. They're .cr3 rather than .cr2... I tried to research into this but was unable to find anythng. Any ideas?

 

[Joules]

One thing I did notice, is that the RAW files seem to be smaller than my T4i. They're .cr3 rather than .cr2... I tried to research into this but was unable to find anythng. Any ideas?

CR3 can store both lossless and lossy compression formats. So if they are significantly lower, odds are you're using the lossy variant. I am not aware of any comparison that actually showed a noteworthy difference between the two in terms of quality though. So, if you are interested in the smallest files, just keep in mind that you are losing some information in the images, although I can't tell you what exactly.

Or maybe you've just shot less complicated scenes at lower ISO yet. High detail, especially fine one such as noise, does increase file sizes.

 

[RickD]

I'm pretty sure I'm using standard RAW. I did a little research into C-Raw, and the file sizes from my shots aren't that small, they're coming out at around 18-20mb, whereas my T4i was usually around 25mb

 

[Joules]

I'm pretty sure I'm using standard RAW. I did a little research into C-Raw, and the file sizes from my shots aren't that small, they're coming out at around 18-20mb, whereas my T4i was usually around 25mb

That sounds about right to me.

With its larger pixels and far less noisy electronics, just the reduction in noise should help a good bit with file sizes. Being a former T3i shooter myself, the sensor in those cameras doesn't hold up all that well compared to modern ones.

 

[RickD]

That sounds about right to me.

With its larger pixels and far less noisy electronics, just the reduction in noise should help a good bit with file sizes. Being a former T3i shooter myself, the sensor in those cameras doesn't hold up all that well compared to modern ones.

That would make sense. I was afraid to go above 400 iso on my T4i, so very rarely saw RAW files above 30mb. I didn't realise quite how much impact noise has on file size.

 

[PunkRawkJay]

I'm disputing this. I've downloaded RAW files from the R6 and they look quite good. Better at higher ISOs than any other camera to date that I've downloaded RAW files for. Possibly some user error happening? I don't mean to insult, but that is quite a statement you've made.

Without a doubt it's 100% possible it was user error. If anyone could mess it up, it's me.

 

[SaP34US]

Is it true that you can't use C1 C2 and C3 for custom video settings but only for photos?

 

[koenkooi]

Is it true that you can't use C1 C2 and C3 for custom video settings but only for photos?

Kinda, in photo mode you get C1-3 and can only store photo settings, if you go to video mode you also get C1-3, but you can only store video settings. But think of those as C4-6, they don’t overlap.
Video C3 is special, it’s the mode that will be used when you press record in photo mode.

 

[dwarven]

Yeah, I've had the R6 for over a week now and the IQ is incredible. Indisputably better than the 6D Mark II and marginally better than the 5D Mark IV.