The Canon EOS R6 Mark II will be announced on November 2, 2022

[Marco Birri]

I mean, if it does end up with the R3's stacked sensor, we're in bargain of the decade territory, aren't we, even if Canon nerf some (or a lot) of the R3 features? Here's hoping. I think, more likely for the rumoured price, it'll be a simplified version of the R3 sensor. But fascinating to see what drops.

More likely than not, if they keep to dual SD cards, you can totally forget 195 fps raw

 

[EOS 4 Life]

A7RV is just an R5 with worse autofocus and still dog ish IBIS

Sony claims to have dramatically improved the IBIS, but I have not seen anyone who actually tested it.

 

[Jethro]

More likely than not, if they keep to dual SD cards, you can totally forget 195 fps raw

Mate, fungi don't move that fast!

 

[BBarn]

I predict the R6II will use a version of the R3 sensor but will lack the processing power for blackout-free EVF and non-rolling ES performance of the R3.

 

[highdesertmesa]

I predict the R6II will use a version of the R3 sensor but will lack the processing power for blackout-free EVF and non-rolling ES performance of the R3.

A slower processor would limit FPS but not the sensor scan speed.

 

[Bahrd]

Sony claims to have dramatically improved the IBIS, but I have not seen anyone who actually tested it.

These guys are a quite reliable source (in Polish): Sony A7R V hands-on. They say:

Jeśli chodzi o nasze obserwacje, to uzyskaliśmy taki sam rezultat jak w teście A7R IV – 3 i 2/3 EV.

That is, there is no noticeable improvement.

 

[Alam]

I don't think anyone wants a $4000-$5000+ R6 Mk2.

1DXmIII coat 6500 yet R6 with practically same sensor is 2500

 

[koenkooi]

More likely than not, if they keep to dual SD cards, you can totally forget 195 fps raw

On the R3, it buffers to memory and then writes it out to the card, it is limited to 50 full size raws in each burst. If the R6II gets the same amount of ram as the R3, it could do the same. The 195 fps mode isn’t limited by the cards.

 

[David - Sydney]

I found that moving from a 7d2 to an R6 gave me cleaner images in all but the best light conditions despite the massive drop in resolution. In average conditions I can crop in to match the FOV of the 7d2 and the image is better than the 7d2. The difference in all the other aspects of the sensor and AF more than make up for a lack of pixels most of the time

The resolution of both sensors is ~20mp. If you are referring to a 1.6x crop from ff to APS-c in apparent focal length then there is a difference.

 

[landon]

R6ii to combat a7iv and X-H2S, R6i to combat a7iii, Z6ii, and X-H2. That's it.

 

[Aussie shooter]

The resolution of both sensors is ~20mp. If you are referring to a 1.6x crop from ff to APS-c in apparent focal length then there is a difference.

Yes. I am referring to pixels on target. Not total sensor resolution. As a wildlife photographer cropping is a given much of the time so that is how I compare my cameras

 

[Avenger 2.0]

Canon claimed the 24 MP R3 sensor outresolves the 30 MP R sensor, and as an owner of both I found that to be true.

So how is that possible? Is it because the R has an OLPF and the R3 a weaker one or none?

 

[kcimer]

The price of the camera is not 80% sensor and 20% everything else. IBIS unit, EVF, Digic, memory, readers, LCD and materials for the body, projected volume (economy of scale) - return on investment ...
Thare is a reason for R6 and not wrongly projected supply of sensors. In first year you sell the sensor at the premium with the premium package (body, readers, EVF) all the while perfecting any problems in production (it is easear with a smaller production volume). With the R6 Canon may have also bridged a year of problems with supply chains and scaling of production BSI stacked sensors while making a big profit selling a very competitive body. And maybe good sale numbers of R6 just opened a new strategy resulting in a similar move for R6 II.
So the R6 II price is not than unusual - they can reuse the R6 body, maybe older DIGIC from the R6 and not the advanced one from R3 with less cache memory resulting in 20fps (not 30fps of R3), lower quality EVF (R6 could use an update - in low light it lacks dynamic range), dual SD is cheaper ... and you have a very, very capable body that is very competitive in the market and is a viable choice for all the people who cannot afford or justified the price of R3 or as a second body with similar specs. And you have R3 as a premium product for all the people who needs it.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

1DXmIII coat 6500 yet R6 with practically same sensor is 2500

The 1Dx3 doesn’t use a fantastically expensive stacked sensor and all the electronics that come with it.

 

[koenkooi]

So how is that possible? Is it because the R has an OLPF and the R3 a weaker one or none?

Yes, starting with the 1Dx3 Canon has used a 'high res 16-point' OLPF. Shooting the 1dx3 and RP side by side, the pictures from the 1dx3 had a lot more detail, even if it had 6 fewer megapixels. This was shooting on a tripod using the 180L and manual focus, so the 1dx3 couldn't flex its AF muscles

 

[Aussie shooter]

The 1Dx3 doesn’t use a fantastically expensive stacked sensor and all the electronics that come with it.

You say 'fantastically expensive ' sensor. Can you inform us what the price difference would be to reuse the r3 sensor as opposed to designing, retooling and producing and all new 24mp CMOS FF sensor? I literally have no idea so really need someone to fill me in

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Not sure if changing the order of the layers really makes it much more expensive. Would it really cost more to print the electrical circuits at the back of the photodiodes?

Source: PC Mag

 

[EOS 4 Life]

You say 'fantastically expensive ' sensor. Can you inform us what the price difference would be to reuse the r3 sensor as opposed to designing, retooling and producing and all new 24mp CMOS FF sensor? I literally have no idea so really need someone to fill me in

All that we really know for sure is what Canon charges to replace the R3 image sensor.
It is quite a lot more expensive than they charge for replacing the sensor in the 1DX III.

 

[Aussie shooter]

All that we really know for sure is what Canon charges to replace the R3 image sensor.
It is quite a lot more expensive than they charge for replacing the sensor in the 1DX III.

How much more? Again. I have no idea so I need a number to go off

 

[Loswr]

Not sure if changing the order of the layers really makes it much more expensive. Would it really cost more to print the electrical circuits at the back of the photodiodes?
View attachment 206095
Source: PC Mag

BSI etches the substrate wafer from both sides meaning a thinner, more fragile wafer. That likely leads to greater QC loss, which disproportionately affects larger sensors (with FSI, and made even worse with BSI).

Stacking requires a second die fused to the photodiode die. However, putting the bulk of the circuitry on a second die means the photodiode die is simpler and can be fabricated with larger-scale (older, cheaper) processes.

I have no idea how that breaks down in actual numbers. Certainly when they were new tech, BSI sensors cost more. But BSI enabled smaller pixel pitch, driven mainly by the smartphone and industrial sensors that are a much larger market than ILCs, and no doubt major efforts were made to reduce fab costs.

Either way, for high-end items like ILCs (all of them, even entry-level), the cost of goods is not the most important factor in setting price. It’s much more about market size and the required margin to drive ROI on the R&D.

An example from my own industry, the first Vertex drug to treat cystic fibrosis costs ~$475 per pill. One Tylenol caplet costs about the same to manufacture as one Kalydeco tablet, so that $475 for one pill would buy you >6,000 Tylenol caplets.