The Canon EOS R6 Mark III is Canon’s Next Full-Frame Release

[Michael Clark]

It's a difference of 30 square mm between the formats. Yes, it matters. More sensor real estate is better.

It's less than a 10% difference in area. If one is so concerned with more sensor size, everyone offers FF cameras.

And by the way, Canon's FF sensors are an honest 36mm x 24mm while most of Sony's & Nikon's are actually 35.9mm x 23.9mm. That's a 7% difference in area! Where's your crying over that?

 

[Michael Clark]

Indeed, but since there is only one camera in a given price bracket, everyone gets stuck with the same trade-offs. I'm not a fan of trading off image quality & low light performance in the name of faster readout speeds. There are plenty of other cameras on the market that already have faster readouts.

Thus: "You pay your money and you make your choice."

There are far more than one camera in each price bracket. All of the major manufacturers offer their own camera in pretty much each price bracket. Sometimes each manufacturer offers more than one.

It isn't that hard to understand. No one is forcing anyone to buy from a specific manufacturer. Yet you seem to want to force every camera maker to design all of their products for only your needs and none to make cameras that are better suited to other use cases?

 

[Michael Clark]

It's always been a problem, and Canon has never addressed it. Canon isn't big on admitting mistakes.

How is offering consumers more choices a problem?

Some folks prefer 1.5X APS-C sensors. There are plenty on the market.
Some folks prefer 1.6X APS-C sensors. Canon offers those.

Pick whichever you want.
Be happy with what you choose for yourself.
There's no need for you to insist you get to choose for everyone else, just as there's no need for anyone else to tell you what to choose.

You don't have to insist that your choice is the only correct choice for everyone. Not everyone has the same preferences as you and not everyone uses cameras and lenses in the same way that you do.

 

[roby17269]

You're blaming ISO for poor performance when the real issue is lack of light, and what little light there is being of very poor quality.

I am blaming ISO?!? what are you talking about?
I just said that for my taste I use AI NR over ISO 800 especially if the light is not ideal.
If you like noise grain that's your preference. I don't unless there's a specific reason to have it.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

And by the way, Canon's FF sensors are an honest 36mm x 24mm while most of Sony's & Nikon's are actually 35.9mm x 23.9mm. That's a 7% difference in area! Where's your crying over that?

Maybe we should check Sony alpha rumors and Nikon rumors

In terms of image quality, my EF 50mm f/1.4 is no better than the EF 50mm f/1.8 II that preceded it at f/2 and beyond. At f/1.8 the 1.4 is *slightly* sharper.

I briefly had the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, then the STM version, and later the 1.4. The reason I got the 1.4 was because the 1.8 had such low resistance to specular highlights in the background it annoyed me.

A few years later I finally upgraded to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art and never looked back.

Currently, I no longer own any EF lens. Truth is, after I got the 28-70mm f/2, I can barely find the need for a prime lens in that range, at least for work. I "want" a good 50, and now there's the VCM, but I'm yet to really feel the need.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

But you are comparing it to the possible launch price of another camera.

The point of my comparison was to contemplate how cheap Canon could make another camera sharing some of the same parts.
There is a precedent with the 1DX III and R6.

 

[mimbu]

You’ve posted this nonsense before, yet you have never used the RF200-800mm lens. And you are wrong about the AF motor of the RF200-800mm lens.
Roger Cicala was and still is right when he said: “Sonyfanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy with other equipment. “

It was people in this forum, Canon users, who tested the 200-800 and noted the subpar performance. It has no increase in resolving power past ~650mm. It makes the image bigger but you get no more detail. That's why it is often noted as being less sharp the further past 600mm that you go.

It's okay to admit that Canon isn't perfect. None of these makers are. If people defend bad designs, they won't do better.

 

[mimbu]

@mimbu is a Sony fanboy, see my quote from Roger Cicala.

Yes, yes. It's always just easier to dismiss someone as a fanboy than it is to admit that whatever brand you are deeply in love with has faults. Often many faults.

The difference between me and you is that I have absolutely ZERO brand loyalty. None. Never have. It's for suckers. It's true I shoot Sony right now but it's because they are the least-bad option of the major brands. I will never return to a brand with a locked down mount. It's anti-consumer and I do not understand why anyone accepts it. I would consider buying into Z mount, if they ever let Sigma in. If Canon ever loosens their death grip on RF I'd consider Canon too, but I don't expect they will. It's pretty likely that I'll end up on L mount when DJI and/or Viltrox start bringing out cameras, even though I would miss Tamron there.

 

[Jethro]

Yes, yes. It's always just easier to dismiss someone as a fanboy than it is to admit that whatever brand you are deeply in love with has faults. Often many faults.

The difference between me and you is that I have absolutely ZERO brand loyalty. None. Never have. It's for suckers. It's true I shoot Sony right now but it's because they are the least-bad option of the major brands. I will never return to a brand with a locked down mount. It's anti-consumer and I do not understand why anyone accepts it. I would consider buying into Z mount, if they ever let Sigma in. If Canon ever loosens their death grip on RF I'd consider Canon too, but I don't expect they will. It's pretty likely that I'll end up on L mount when DJI and/or Viltrox start bringing out cameras, even though I would miss Tamron there.

At least this was shorter than your previous 'reply' (#214) to this exact same comment. Obviously touched a nerve, as truths tend to ...

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It was people in this forum, Canon users, who tested the 200-800 and noted the subpar performance. It has no increase in resolving power past ~650mm. It makes the image bigger but you get no more detail. That's why it is often noted as being less sharp the further past 600mm that you go.

It's okay to admit that Canon isn't perfect. None of these makers are. If people defend bad designs, they won't do better.

That depends on the focus distance.
People misunderstand and think that an 800 mm lens will always have more magnification than a 600 mm lens at the same distance.
Most people test the performance of super telephoto lenses far too close.
The weird thing is that I even hear this mistake from experts.
That you want to get close to a subject with a super-telephoto lens.
Super telephoto lenses are designed to focus on faraway subjects unless they have some macro capabilities.

 

[Michael Clark]

Maybe we should check Sony alpha rumors and Nikon rumors

I briefly had the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, then the STM version, and later the 1.4. The reason I got the 1.4 was because the 1.8 had such low resistance to specular highlights in the background it annoyed me.

A few years later I finally upgraded to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art and never looked back.

Currently, I no longer own any EF lens. Truth is, after I got the 28-70mm f/2, I can barely find the need for a prime lens in that range, at least for work. I "want" a good 50, and now there's the VCM, but I'm yet to really feel the need.

I tend to use my 35mm and 135mm primes far more than my 85mm, and the 50mm even less than the 85mm. So it's not a high priority focal length for me. I shoot with the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L a lot. As maligned as that lens is (mostly because of its retrofocus design and two tilt adjustments located in the front of the lens it can be knocked out of optical alignment fairly easily if the hood is not protecting the extended barrel from lateral bumps and bangs) I get photos that are good enough for my purposes out of it. My lens seems to still be in excellent optical alignment, though I've tended to baby it over the years I've had it.

 

[Michael Clark]

My experience is that ISO 6400 with the R5 is useable with AI NR. Personally I use AI NR above ISO 800.

Beware that there is a significant penalty in processing time when you use any AI NR, especially if your computer is not powerful.

AI NR is materially better than "classic" NR, but it is not magic and the higher the ISO, the more detail you'll lose (the loss will be less compared to "classic" NR, but still present)

Nope I meant 800. I should qualify it with "and when I am taking photos in badly lit environments" which happens frequently when I am taking photos at indoor birthday parties...

Incidentally I had a EF 50 1.4 and absolutely hated it - sold it for a EF 50 1.2 and did not like that one as well... that sort of put me off the 50mm fl, until Canon saw fit to provide a 50mm that I liked, the RF 1.2

My point is in your initial post you blamed needing NR on the ISO setting, when the real culprit was the poor lighting conditions which you only acknowledged in your follow up post in reply to another comment. You can get photos with virtually no noise at high ISO if you are willing to let small specular highlights blow out and use long enough exposure times to allow enough light into the camera.

 

[AlanF]

That depends on the focus distance.
People misunderstand and think that an 800 mm lens will always have more magnification than a 600 mm lens at the same distance.
Most people test the performance of super telephoto lenses far too close.
The weird thing is that I even hear this mistake from experts.
That you want to get close to a subject with a super-telephoto lens.
Super telephoto lenses are designed to focus on faraway subjects unless they have some macro capabilities.

I have done most of the testing of the RF 200-800mm posted on this site, and I do it at distances that are compatible with its use in real life for me - photographing birds. You need a supertelephoto to get well-defined images of a small bird at 20m as well as larger ones at longer distances or birds in flight. I just about always have the lens fully extended at 800mm, because I always get more magnification than at 600mm (I use 400-600mm for fast small birds in flight). The resolution might not be any better at 800mm than 600mm, but more pixels on target pick out small details with less pixellation at the limits of resolution. Also, the eyeAF/bird AF picks up birds at further distances at 800mm than using 600mm.

Thread 'Summary of my RF 200-800mm testing'

Jan 31, 2024

I have now taken a couple of thousand images with charts and birds in the wild to test the RF 200-800mm on the R5 and some on the R7. This was both from sheer interest and for me to decide whether to keep the lens and if so which lens to use in various circumstances. Much has been posted in two threads: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/rf-200-800mm-500mm-vs-800mm-etc-with-birds.43235/ and https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-rf-100-500mm-vs-rf-800mm-on-r7-and-r5.43183/

After another 1000 shots in the past two days, comparing with the RF 800mm f/11...

• AlanF
• Replies: 134
• Forum: Canon Lenses

• 
• 

 

[Cico]

Enough with the megapixel madness.








When did photography become a megapixel race instead of a quest for beauty, light, and emotion?





Today we see cameras that cost $3,000–$4,000… yet the moment you raise the ISO, the image looks like it came from a $500 camera.


Noise everywhere. Plastic skin tones. Oversharpened details that kill the soul of the photo.





Meanwhile, look at cameras like the Canon R3 or the Sony FX3 — “only” 12 or 24 megapixels, but absolute monsters in low light.


Clean shadows, incredible dynamic range, natural color, and pure image texture that feels cinematic even straight out of camera.


They prove what really matters: less noise, not more pixels.





And now, rumors say the Canon R6 Mark III might arrive next year.


If Canon keeps the R3-style sensor — that would make sense. That’s evolution.


But if they jump on the “more megapixels” hype again… well, they can keep it.


Because I don’t need 45MP of noise — I need 24MP of perfection.





Photography is not about counting pixels. It’s about capturing feelings.


And feelings don’t need 60 megapixels to shine.

 

[SvO2]

You seem to have the misconception that lower resolution means less noise

 

[roby17269]

My point is in your initial post you blamed needing NR on the ISO setting, when the real culprit was the poor lighting conditions which you only acknowledged in your follow up post in reply to another comment. You can get photos with virtually no noise at high ISO if you are willing to let small specular highlights blow out and use long enough exposure times to allow enough light into the camera.

"blame"? "culprit"? I may blame the bad lightning of a venue but I do not resent physics or technology.
And long exposures + running kids are not a great combo unless you like photos of smeared ghosts.
In any case I am not sure where this discussion is going? If I use high ISO it's usually because the conditions are not ideal. If there is enough light or long exposure is viable then I will tend to use low ISO.

 

[scyrene]

I will never return to a brand with a locked down mount. It's anti-consumer and I do not understand why anyone accepts it.

Speaking for myself, it's irrelevant. I don't buy lenses any more, but if I did there are adequate options already available. So it doesn't matter to me what third party options there are (or aren't, in this case). Given how few consumers buy multiple lenses at all, I suspect it's not as big a deal for many people as for a few here.

 

[scyrene]

When did photography become a megapixel race instead of a quest for beauty, light, and emotion?
Clean shadows, incredible dynamic range, natural color, and pure image texture that feels cinematic even straight out of camera.
They prove what really matters: less noise, not more pixels.
Photography is not about counting pixels. It’s about capturing feelings.

So... dynamic range and low noise = emotions, but not resolution? Gotcha

 

[roby17269]

Enough with the megapixel madness.








When did photography become a megapixel race instead of a quest for beauty, light, and emotion?





Today we see cameras that cost $3,000–$4,000… yet the moment you raise the ISO, the image looks like it came from a $500 camera.


Noise everywhere. Plastic skin tones. Oversharpened details that kill the soul of the photo.





Meanwhile, look at cameras like the Canon R3 or the Sony FX3 — “only” 12 or 24 megapixels, but absolute monsters in low light.


Clean shadows, incredible dynamic range, natural color, and pure image texture that feels cinematic even straight out of camera.


They prove what really matters: less noise, not more pixels.





And now, rumors say the Canon R6 Mark III might arrive next year.


If Canon keeps the R3-style sensor — that would make sense. That’s evolution.


But if they jump on the “more megapixels” hype again… well, they can keep it.


Because I don’t need 45MP of noise — I need 24MP of perfection.





Photography is not about counting pixels. It’s about capturing feelings.


And feelings don’t need 60 megapixels to shine.

Enough with people telling other people how any quality of a camera (megapixels, AF, speed, etc.) is enough.

You like 24mp? Great! Canon offers you 4 current FF cameras (R1 R3 R6 II R8).
People that want more mp? so far only 1 FF current camera (R5 II), till we get the R6 III.
Canon will survive you not buying a R6 III, like they survived me not buying a R5 II or a R1 because they did not increase the sensor resolution.

I've never heard of "sharpness killing the soul of a photo" - Between 2 versions of the same photo, one sharp and one soft, I know which one I prefer.
And having higher resolution is not something antithetical to feelings, you know? I can get images I love with 80mp or 45mp - they would not be better with 24mp. Just less versatile.
Not to mention that higher resolution means higher noise only at pixel level... which someone interested in feelings should not care about.

Again, you're free to like and prefer whatever you want, but do not impose your views on me.

 

[pulseimages]

I have a 6D now and I was just trying out the new R6 Mark III and the R5 Mark II at the Hunt’s show. I’m disappointed how small the Mirrorless bodies are. Sure I could use a battery grip but I don’t like using the grip all the time on my 6D such as when I doing street photography. Why are the bodies smaller but the RF lenses are about the same size as EF glass?