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.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
They wouldn't. They have different entrance pupil sizes, so they will render the infinity differently.
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.
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.
You might as well be arguing with a member of the Flat Earth Society about the shape of the Earth.
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 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.
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.Yeah, but that´s user error, not a camera fault!
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.
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.
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
