Review: Canon EOS R6 by DPReview

[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.

 

[Danglin52]

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

Should be slightly better with larger pixels, don’t have to down res the image, and saves $1,400 as a backup. That said, I am considering going with 2 R5’s so I don’t have to deal with the differences AND the down res images on The Digital Picture only show R6 has a slight advantage

 

[puffo25]

Compared to the Sony A7S3.

Compared to the Sony A7S3, what? Can you kindly provide me a full sentence.?
TIA.
Andrea

 

[privatebydesign]

Should be slightly better with larger pixels, don’t have to down res the image, and saves $1,400 as a backup. That said, I am considering going with 2 R5’s so I don’t have to deal with the differences AND the down res images on The Digital Picture only show R6 has a slight advantage

Considering nobody yet has a decent way of processing R5 RAW files I’d say any analysis is premature, but I’d be surprised if there is any practical difference because “Should be slightly better with larger pixels” simply isn’t true.

 

[Danglin52]

Considering nobody yet has a decent way of processing R5 RAW files I’d say any analysis is premature, but I’d be surprised if there is any practical difference because “Should be slightly better with larger pixels” simply isn’t true.

Take a look at The Digital Picture which has noise test photos up for both cameras. To me, the R6 looks slightly cleaner than the down res R5 images at ISO 3200, 6400 & 12,800 suing both DPP & PS. Is it huge, no. Yes I shoot @ ISO that high (wildlife) and yes it could be because of early versions of software. I would trust Bryan's DPP examples more than I would the PS samples at this point. Certainly more opportunity for improvement if the DPP version isn't production.

 

[Kit.]

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.

They wouldn't. They have different entrance pupil sizes, so they will render the infinity differently.

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.

It will be noisier because it has the same angle of view, but smaller entrance pupil, so it gathers less amount of photons through its entrance pupil. It does not really matter on sensor of what size these photons are projected.

If, instead of the same f/ ratio, you specify the same entrance pupil size, you will get exactly the same picture and exactly the same noise, as long as your smaller sensor can cope with the increased exposure (and decreased ISO to match it without losing photons in ND filters).

A smaller sensor needs a higher light flux density to receive the same light flux, but as long as the lens can project it and the sensor is not overflown by it (both limitations benefit the larger sensor area), the smaller sensor will render the same image with the same noise.

 

[privatebydesign]

Take a look at The Digital Picture which has noise test photos up for both cameras. To me, the R6 looks slightly cleaner than the down res R5 images at ISO 3200, 6400 & 12,800 suing both DPP & PS. Is it huge, no. Yes I shoot @ ISO that high (wildlife) and yes it could be because of early versions of software. I would trust Bryan's DPP examples more than I would the PS samples at this point. Certainly more opportunity for improvement if the DPP version isn't production.

The DPR comparison tool is showing virtually no difference in the files, even when you copy them and put them into 'difference' mode in Photoshop there is virtually no difference, they could be images from the same camera. The noise characteristics and distribution is identical.

Here is the R5 and R6 at 6,400iso with the R5 image overlaid on the R6 image in 'difference' mode, (darker is better). There is virtually no difference.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

but I’d be surprised if there is any practical difference because “Should be slightly better with larger pixels” simply isn’t true.

 

[AlanF]

The DPR comparison tool is showing virtually no difference in the files, even when you copy them and put them into 'difference' mode in Photoshop there is virtually no difference, they could be images from the same camera. The noise characteristics and distribution is identical.

Here is the R5 and R6 at 6,400iso with the R5 image overlaid on the R6 image in 'difference' mode, (darker is better). There is virtually no difference.

View attachment 191546

You might as well be arguing with a member of the Flat Earth Society about the shape of the Earth.

 

[Danglin52]

The DPR comparison tool is showing virtually no difference in the files, even when you copy them and put them into 'difference' mode in Photoshop there is virtually no difference, they could be images from the same camera. The noise characteristics and distribution is identical.

Here is the R5 and R6 at 6,400iso with the R5 image overlaid on the R6 image in 'difference' mode, (darker is better). There is virtually no difference.

View attachment 191546

What are you comparing? RAW or JPG? As of 5 minutes ago, I downloaded the latest updates to PS and you still can't open the R6/R5 files from DPR. From above, it looks like you are using a converted PNG from somewhere.

I actually like the full shot color charts that The Digital Pictures uses for Noise vs the DPR tool - too much clutter on DPR.

David.

 

[padam]

new review:

 

[stevelee]

They're masters of segmentation but for potential customers it's quite demeaning. "We know the one feature that you want, but you're going to have to pay for the next tier up to get it. Because we're in charge."

Imagine if cameras were like cars, wherein you picked your base platform and then specified sensor, software features and connectivity modules. The price might be higher but at least it was due to *your* choices.

I don't think many cars come that way any more, at least not cars from foreign manufacturers in the US. My garage door is not very wide, and over the years I had managed to crash both the side mirrors more than once when backing out. So I wanted electric folding mirrors on my new Audi I bought in December. The package with the electric mirrors was something like $5,000, I think. I decided some of the other stuff that came with that might be neat to have, and I really liked the interior on the particular car I bought, so I'm not unhappy really. If I had wanted much of anything else (beyond upgraded floor mats and the like), that would have been another $5,000 for the next package.

 

[pulseimages]

Yeah, but that´s user error, not a camera fault! They did show some pics that are perfect in sharpness and color. Of course it´s quite difficult to evaluate picture quality from pics in a video on youtube, but we do have an idea how great still image can be from the EOS R6. And it looks quite promising!

I just wish a couple of things were different. 1) That they used either the 28-70 2.8 L or 24-70 2.8 L IS for the review and not the 24-105 4 L IS. I've seen the MTF charts comparing the RF and EF versions of the 24-105 and there isn't a big difference in sharpness. 2) If the R6 is the new 6D then why is it still using a 20 megapixel sensor that the 6D debuted with way back in 2012? Now you have the R at 30 megapixels and the RP at 26.4 and both of those cameras are missing major features.

 

[pulseimages]

Getting into the same resolution realm, so I'd guess yes. I've followed AlanF's comments on the 5DSR and generally they were very positive without complaints about glass.

Jack

Well I won't be getting an R5 because besides 3 primes lenses none of my L zoom lenses are on Canon's officially approved list of glass for high megapixel sensors.

 

[pulseimages]

We'll be waiting forever.

DSLR - Let's wait for mirrorless....
R - kinda basic and compared to the completion. Let' wait.
RP - let's REEEEALY WAIT!
R5/R6 - Wow! but let's wait...

If anything, wait a month after not just full reviews are out, but actually customers got to use it.

I'll wait. I got my 6D which is 20 megapixels. I don't see the point of spending more for the R6 to stay at 20 megapixels but only to get IBIS and faster shooting speeds.

 

[SecureGSM]

I'll wait. I got my 6D which is 20 megapixels. I don't see the point of spending more for the R6 to stay at 20 megapixels but only to get IBIS and faster shooting speeds.

well, you are much better with R6 sensor at ISO 3200 and higher, there is a second card slot in R6, a better weather-sealing and much higher dynamic ranger - these are some basic, really quick advantages for still photogs.

 

[Baron_Karza]

I'll wait. I got my 6D which is 20 megapixels. I don't see the point of spending more for the R6 to stay at 20 megapixels but only to get IBIS and faster shooting speeds.

Go ahead and keep your 60D then. Just seems to contradict what you said in your post that I was replying to below. Seemed you wanted those features. BTW, if those are the only difference you know of, then you really have no clue at all of all the differences.

"Seeing as this is Canon's first foray into IBIS and 8K wouldn't it be wise to follow the old saying of "Don't buy first generation of anything"? Wait till the second generation when they've had time to work out the bugs."

 

[Danglin52]

I’ll likely wait for another reviewer. I just seen one on the R5 posted in this thread that was good. What I am after now is a proper written review and not another YouTube personality. Jared Polin can be entertaining, but he can also be a lot of work to watch as he uses a lot of tone shifts and he is dreadfully excitable.

How about this short review. After 16 DAYS shooting wildlife in YNP/GTNP, i have no regrets replacing my 1dx II with the R5 + 100-500 with a few cautions

• Battery life, buy the grip and 2-3 sets if you are a heavy shooter. I was getting 650-700 shots per battery, but I have been a bit heavy handed on the shutter.
• Memory cards, 45 MB’s chews through memory cards.
• Not instant on, be aware of the state of your camera if you want the EVF to be active when it reaches your eve. Canon is going to have to figure out a idle/instant feature for the R1 and R5 II.
• AF is really good but can still be confused by twigs and grass even if the eye is visible.
• the 100-500 is at least as good or better than the 100-400 II with one exception - restriction of zoom range when using the 1.4x or 2x extenders. You have to extend the zoom to 300mm before you can add the TC and loose the 100-299mm range of the zoom. You are limited to 420mm-700mm when the 1.4 is attached. This is an issue if the subjects moves closer and you need to remove the TC. I was going to sell my 100-400mm II, but I have decided to keep the lens on a second body when using the 100-500 + TC.