Review: Canon EOS R6 by DPReview

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
116
44
56
italy
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
 

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
116
44
56
italy
In my view, the R5 is the ultimate hybrid camera to this point in time—which includes the to-be-released Sony A7SIII. The R5 has compelling video formats (4K DCI 120fps 10-bit) a 45mp sensor, outstanding IBIS, great ergonomics and class leading AF. The R6 is NOT an R5!

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?
 

Ramage

EOS R5
CR Pro
Aug 27, 2019
589
1,183
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

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
116
44
56
italy
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
 

Kiton

Too deep in Canon to list! :o
Jun 13, 2015
150
134
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.
 

Attachments

  • AE350A06-1763-475A-A13D-D93FB06CF62C.jpeg
    AE350A06-1763-475A-A13D-D93FB06CF62C.jpeg
    465.1 KB · Views: 105
Last edited:

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
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?
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,409
2,272
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

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,409
2,272
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

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
957
469
61
Blyth, NE England
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

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,432
5,656
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keith_Reeder

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,432
5,656
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keith_Reeder

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,432
5,656
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sporgon and SteveC

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,409
2,272
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

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,432
5,656
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.