The Canon EOS R6 Mark III is Canon’s Next Full-Frame Release
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Did you think that was likely?Now there’s no way that the R6iii would get a top down LCD
Upvote
0
The R5II way more usable electronic shutter (also affects subject recognition, so better AF), 3x quicker readout (6ms vs 18ms) and less dynamic range loss vs mechanical shutter. And there are many other little cost saving measures in the R6 series.I’m worried. If the R5ii is 45 Mpix and the R6iii is gonna be >30Mpix, what is gonna be the differentiator? Now there’s no way that the R6iii would get a top down LCD
But those who care about resolution the most will be happy to hear an R6III getting close to an R5II.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
I agree with what you are saying, except the sensor in the R6III is likely to be in region of about 14ms readout speed. The other two factors are the resolution of the EVF and the buffer size.
Upvote
0
Many reasons, it is two revisions older.
For sports shooting or video, R6III offers key improvements, but an R5 has things that come from a higher class.
They are not enabling this in stills cameras (even in an R1).
Upvote
0
Autofocus, Better Electronic shutter, new rumoured tilt screen, electronic shutter sound, shutter faster than 1/8000 etc...
But yes the R6 MK3 will have to compete with the R5 MK1 due to close price.
Upvote
0
roby17269
R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini 4 Pro & Mavic 4 Pro
I do not have any study / research to prove that digital correction loses pixels (as I assume you don't have them to prove that they don't as well, since you haven't offered any).
But this is the way I look at it: it depends on the image circle the lens projects on the sensor. If the image circle of a digitally corrected lens covers the entire sensor then there is no a priori pixel loss, but the lens that requires the most geometric correction will result in a (slightly) less image quality since more pixels will be stretched.
If it doesn't then there is a further (small) loss of quality: an optically corrected lens may still require stretching, but the data used to create the corrected image is based on the full mp count of the sensor, while with digitally corrected lens whose image circle does not cover the full sensor, the stretching will be done using less data (less pixels), therefore more pixels are "created" with digitally corrected lenses.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Good points. Corner sharpness should be reasonable either way and there are few use cases where tack sharp corners are mandatory or at least advantageous for lens selection eg astro.
I can only rely on that Canon has done the comparison and decided that the difference is not worth the extra physical lens component cost. They would be able to have prototypes for both options to compare whereas reviewers wouldn't.
Digital would be cheaper and keeps the lens lighter and smaller which are key features for new lenses.
If there was a significant difference then you could imagine that all the punters would be up in arms about it with youtubers blowing their collective stacks but that doesn't seem to be the case. It could also be that most OEMs are doing the same thing as it makes commercial sense with almost no downside. Having no ecosystem keyboard warriors arguing for their side also helps.
Upvote
0
It's Canon, they are careful not to make any hybrid "full-featured". It just won't get features that higher-end models like R5II already don't have.
I'd even say that based on R5 vs R6, it is not impossible that it will stick to 16:9 video to segment it further from a C50, would be 1.07x crop like an OG R6. Maybe no All-I codec either, but I do except C-Log 2 to be retained, probably the most important. Wouldn't bet on these things, just wishful thinking based on what they may remove for a lower price (despite adding shutter, EVF, IBIS, and maybe tilt/flip LCD).
Upvote
0
roby17269
R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini 4 Pro & Mavic 4 Pro
Thanks!
Stretched corners can be tack sharp, it depends on the algorithms used to do the stretching... those are still not necessarily "real" pixels... but at the very least it's easier to do geometric corrections with more data (pixels) to work with.
I'd much rather they offered both options at specific focal lengths: one smaller, lighter, cheaper, digitally corrected lens and one bigger, heavier, more expensive, optically corrected lens. I'd love for them to do it for 35mm, like they have already done for 50mm and 85mm. I have serious envy for the ones that can use the new Sigma 35 1.2...
You say "key" features... they are not key for me.
We agree that there is a difference and we agree that the difference is small. Whether that difference is significant or not it depends on individual photographers.
But even if the difference was significant, why would the punters be up in arms about it at all? wouldn't price, size and weight (key features, aren't they?) more than make up for it? having multiple lenses at the same focal length at different price points with different characteristics is not a new thing.
? not sure I understand this last sentence?
Upvote
0
I guess that the Z (24-105 & 70-200) are the only ones that have duplicates within that RF ecosystem that are heavier, internal zoom and better quality at a cost. I am not sure if they are digitally corrected or not though.I'd much rather they offered both options at specific focal lengths: one smaller, lighter, cheaper, digitally corrected lens and one bigger, heavier, more expensive, optically corrected lens. I'd love for them to do it for 35mm, like they have already done for 50mm and 85mm. I have serious envy for the ones that can use the new Sigma 35 1.2...
You say "key" features... they are not key for me.
There aren't other duplicates that I know of but RF versions of EF tend to have "better" features to tempt people to upgrade. Weight/size are some of them especially without the adaptor.
We see some comments in this forum about users preferring optical correction without clear justification but feelings matter.But even if the difference was significant, why would the punters be up in arms about it at all? wouldn't price, size and weight (key features, aren't they?) more than make up for it? having multiple lenses at the same focal length at different price points with different characteristics is not a new thing.
? not sure I understand this last sentence?
The ecosystem keyboard warriors are mostly the Sony fan boys stating that their system is better than everyone else. With Sony also making digitally corrected lenses then they don't have a platform to throw barbed comments at everyone especially the market leader.
The only real argument against Canon/FF lenses now is the lack of 3rd party options which is pointed out ad nausem. For new cost-conscious buyers of full frame systems then E mount may be the best for them but I suggest that most FF buyers are migrating from a APS-C system (as I did from 7D) and their experience, menus and layout plus reusing their existing lenses will be an advantage.
There will always be switchers who will tell everyone that they are changing but it is a big cost to do it.
Upvote
0
The RF24-105 f2.8 Z lens requires digital corrections: “This is another lens that requires correction of barrel distortion. I did not check, but I'm sure it's 'forced' in camera. The corners are black at 24mm, however the distortion resolves pretty quickly since the black corners are gone by 28mm”.
The quote is from this post by @neuroanatomist.
Personally I prefer the small size of the RF 10-20mm f4 lens above the bulk of the EF 11-24mm f4 lens. The EF lens was optically corrected to fill the corners, but the image quality in the corners was not great. I’d say the quality of the ‘stretched’ corners of the RF lens are comparable to those of the EF lens.
Upvote
0
I don't expect the R8mkii before 2027 or later. 2027 would be fine with me. I want to add an R8 as a second lightweight and compact camera body. Since I just purchased the RF 50mm F1.4 VCM(currently waiting for it) I am in no hurry and I could/ would be in the market for R8mkii in 2027 or later.
Based on past history, the refresh cycle for lower tier models, such as the R8, are shorter than for higher tier models such as the 1-Series and 5-series.
The R6 Mark II came a mere two years after the R6, though it has now been three years and still counting since the R6 Mark II debuted. Split the difference and that's a 30-32 month cycle if the R6 Mark III comes by the end of January, 2026. The R8 has been on the market for 30 months...
Upvote
0
1991 to 2007 was 16 years. It's been 18 years since 2007, so maybe the RF 14mm L is about due?
Upvote
0
