Review: Canon EOS R6 by DPReview

[Jonathan Thill]

Hi all, I am still struggling between which camera body to buy: R5 and R6. I do NOT care much about video nor about making large poster size prints... My main focus is to make landscape, fine art b&w, street photos, events, astro, milky way and panoramic images.
Friend of mine who is in the astro/night star trails and panoramic images strongly suggest me to buy the R6 since the R5 sensor is too big and larger files are either not necessary for that kind of pictures. He also think that the 20 megapixel sensor is much better than the 45 megapixels sensor for my various photo genre.
I am wondering if you also think that overall speaking, the R6 will be a better choice?
And in low light conditions do you think it will create cleaner and better files/ie less noise, than the R5?

Any feedback is much appreciated.
Andrea

Sounds like you are getting solid advice from your friend. If you trust them look no further.

The R5 vs R6 debate is simple in terms of photography. Do you want/need 45mp images? If yes the R5 wins if no save some money and get the R6 and more glass.

 

[puffo25]

Sounds like you are getting solid advice from your friend. If you trust them look no further.

The R5 vs R6 debate is simple in terms of photography. Do you want/need 45mp images? If yes the R5 wins if no save some money and get the R6 and more glass.

Thanks Ramage for your kind reply. I do not think it is only about the megapixels sensor difference. The R5 has better weather proof sealing, 5Ghz wifi and few other things....
However and again, thinking about the photo genre I have described before, ie star trails, milky way, night-astro photos, panoramic images, I am wondering if indeed the smaller sensor of the R6 is much more appropriate for that kind of images? That is my only and major question I have.
TIA.
Andrea

 

[Atlasman]

Atlasman, Hi, you mean the R5 has a better AF than the R6? I thought they were the same... And about IBIS is the R5 any better than the R6?

Compared to the Sony A7S3.

 

[Kiton]

For those that are concerned about banding in LED lighting with the R5, I have just shot a few test frames with a Canon rep’s camera. A quick pic with full LED lighting to test. Zero Banding!

This is a rough quick test but very impressive. Shot frames at 1000 and 3200 at f 4.

if the mods want a RAW file I can send one along later today.

 

[privatebydesign]

The R5 will get used for landscape and wildlife when he light is good, the R6 will be the go to camera when the light fades.

What makes you think you will see any difference in low light images from the two cameras when the images are normalized?

 

[SecureGSM]

For those that are concerned about banding in LED lighting with the R5, I have just shot a few test frames with a Canon rep’s camera. A quick pic with full LED lighting to test. Zero Banding!

This is a rough quick test but very impressive. Shot frames at 1000 and 3200 at f 4.

if the mods want a RAW file I can send one along later today.

Mechanical shutter or electronic shutter?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

What makes you think you will see any difference in low light images from the two cameras when the images are normalized?

It's like Groundhog Day, isn't it?

 

[privatebydesign]

It's like Groundhog Day, isn't it?

Indeed! Meanwhile people continue to think they need a second camera for low light, or that they are making a choice between MP and low light performance, even when nobody can show a single pair of images illustrating that idea, why is this so hard a lesson to learn?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

It's beyond me. But then again, plenty of people think the Moon landings were faked, and that the Earth is flat, so...

 

[SteveC]

Indeed! Meanwhile people continue to think they need a second camera for low light, or that they are making a choice between MP and low light performance, even when nobody can show a single pair of images illustrating that idea, why is this so hard a lesson to learn?

Perhaps many of them are looking at individual pixels, rather than the entire image.

In some contexts that might be appropriate, but when talking about taking a landscape picture one isn't planning to crop down...it's not.

 

[SteveC]

It's beyond me. But then again, plenty of people think the Moon landings were faked, and that the Earth is flat, so...

As a veteran of a long discussion with someone who pointed to some NASA report on an aerodynamics model that assumed a flat earth (to make the math simpler while only introducing errors in something like the ninth decimal place) as proof that the earth really is flat and NASA knows it...I feel the pain.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Perhaps many of them are looking at individual pixels, rather than the entire image.

It's exactly that, Steve - this was being argued ten and more years ago, but images have to be viewed at the same, normalised image level in order to properly compare noise levels between cameras and sensors.

 

[privatebydesign]

Perhaps many of them are looking at individual pixels, rather than the entire image.

In some contexts that might be appropriate, but when talking about taking a landscape picture one isn't planning to crop down...it's not.

To the idea of looking at individual pixels, that is a fallacious endeavor for two reasons, first you are no longer comparing like for like merely enlarging the higher resolution sensor noise more, so you aren’t seeing an actual comparison. Second, the argument is always ‘I need the lower resolution sensor for better high iso/low light performance‘, ergo the lower resolution is ’enough’ anyway.

If one were to frame the argument like this, I need the per pixel performance of the low resolution sensor in a high resolution sensor that makes sense, but it won’t find you a camera because that camera can’t exist by definition. If they could make such a camera the per pixel performance of a lower resolution sensor would be better still!. People have to understand what they are looking at and for when looking at high iso/low light image quality is sensor area performance, that is why all phone cameras without exception are garbage in low light. It’s why m4/3 is better than phones, APS-C is better than m4/3 and 135 format is better again, they all have comparable technology so the per area performance is similar when you look at unmolested RAW sensor output. Though the trend is to not allow you unmolested RAW files, which I find a bigger concern.

 

[privatebydesign]

It's exactly that, Steve - this was being argued ten and more years ago, but images have to be viewed at the same, normalised image level in order to properly compare noise levels between cameras and sensors.

Agreed, and to those that say ‘but I need the pixels of the higher my camera‘ then all you need to do is upsize the smaller one. The size you compare them at is irrelevant, the fact that they must be the same size is the crucial part.

 

[SteveC]

Though the trend is to not allow you unmolested RAW files, which I find a bigger concern.

Sounds to my like someone is unhappy with the 24-240?? [That one rubs me the wrong way, too, though I can see a marketing rationale for it.]

 

[privatebydesign]

Sounds to my like someone is unhappy with the 24-240?? [That one rubs me the wrong way, too, though I can see a marketing rationale for it.]

No I wasn’t thinking of that lens, it is a lens I would never buy or use, but it is an unfortunate trend other manufacturers have pushed Canon into following and I think we, as photographers, will come to rue in the end.

 

[SteveC]

No I wasn’t thinking of that lens, it is a lens I would never buy or use, but it is an unfortunate trend other manufacturers have pushed Canon into following and I think we, as photographers, will come to rue in the end.

Well, as long as we can get lenses that don't need ridiculous amounts of in-camera correction, it's not as bad as it could be.

I'd be very, very worried if lenses like this started getting the L designation.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well, as long as we can get lenses that don't need ridiculous amounts of in-camera correction, it's not as bad as it could be.

I'd be very, very worried if lenses like this started getting the L designation.

The problem I see is that it isn’t just lenses, when unknowledgeable people are expectant and hyper critical of sub 1 stop differences in noise and dynamic range and are constantly bombarded with reviewers, influencers and self appointed experts who constantly repeat misleading garbage if any manufacturer doctors/pre processes their RAW files it forces the others to do it as well so they can compete. The Sony stareater RAW files are the classic example.

 

[Kiton]

Mechanical shutter or electronic shutter?

Electronic shutter, at full 20 fps,

not a single frame show banding. I did not have the camera for long, there was a line of people there, they wanted to shoot outside, and all I cared about was if the camera banded in LED on electronic shutter. I had a LED source, shot some tests and bolted.

 

[SteveC]

OK, so to check that I understand this:

Imagine two cameras, one a 32MP APS-C (e.g., the M6-II or 90D), and the other a 32MP full frame (not sure there is such a beast), the sensors are the same "generation" and so on. Stick a 500mm lens on the crop camera, site yourself somewhere, and take a picture. Then grab the full frame, put an 800mm lens on it, and take a picture. Assume both are at the same f/ ratio. They should look identical in composition and perspective.

I would expect, in this case for the crop picture to look a bit noisier, right? Both pictures have the same number of pixels, but in the FF case they're "bigger" pixels.