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

[Michael Clark]

I don't believe that there is extra pixel data in optically corrected lenses of the same size as the digitally corrected one. We may think that the "light" is more accurate that digital manipulation but the physics still means aberrations.
Can you point to any study/research to show that optical is better than digital correction?

Note that severe vignetting is an issue for single frame astro shots but much less so for panoramas. This is due to the corners being discarded when the panorama is generated - say with a 1/3 frame overlap. The side bits are for the panorama stitching control points but are discarded in the final image. The exception is the top left/right corner of the final merged image where this is not the case.

You CAN Correct It In Post, but . . .

. . . . there is no free lunch. I hear this about 20 times a day and it's true: "Yes, it has a lot of distortion, but that's easy to correct in post." It's a totally true statement. Unfortunately, way too often, the complete statement goes like this: "I got it because it has [...]

www.lensrentals.com

 

[Michael Clark]

If you want a high resolution stacked sensor, the R5 II already exists

"But I want a Rolex for a Timex price!"

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

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.

When Canon first started doing it, there were a lot of YouTubers who blew their stacks. That is, until it was pointed out to them that Micro Four-Thirds cameras/lenses had been using this strategy to make lenses smaller/lighter/cheaper since the beginning of Micro Four-Thirds. Not wanting to criticize their Holy Grail Micro Four-thirds systems, they suddenly forgot all about such criticism.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

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 R8 came out four years and one month after the EOS RP.

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...

I believe the original R6 was replaced early due to its lower resolution. Many, many users feared 20MP would not be enough, hence an early replacement. People really don't check how small the difference between 20 and 24MP is. The second generation sold a lot more for that reason.

My guess is Canon is now fixing their timeline. The R6 III will come out about three years after the R6 II and, again, my guess, the R6 IV will come out four years after the R6 III. Time will tell.

 

[koenkooi]

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.

I'm curious about R8 style bodies as well, I enjoy using the R8 a lot. I picked up an R50V to have an even smaller camera, but pretty much every time I use the R50V I think "the R8 would've done this with less effort" or "The perspective I want cannot be achieved with my current lenses and APS-C, but if can be with FF".
The EF-M system has made me wary of buying APS-C only lenses, a Sigma 10-18 would improve the R50V experience a lot, but I already have the 15-30STM for the R8. The smart thing to do would be selling the R50V and keeping that money for a potential 2027 R8II upgrade

 

[Michael Clark]

The R8 came out four years and one month after the EOS RP.


I believe the original R6 was replaced early due to its lower resolution. Many, many users feared 20MP would not be enough, hence an early replacement. People really don't check how small the difference between 20 and 24MP is. The second generation sold a lot more for that reason.

My guess is Canon is now fixing their timeline. The R6 III will come out about three years after the R6 II and, again, my guess, the R6 IV will come out four years after the R6 III. Time will tell.

I don't see the R8 as an "RP Mark II". If anything, it was much closer to being the "EOS R Mark II" other than the lower resolution sensor. But it's really neither at any level of features and details. The RP is still in Canon's active catalog. The EOS R was officially discontinued shortly after the R8 was introduced.

The EOS R and EOS RP were both one-off models for Canon to test the FF MILC waters and to stave off the cries of how far behind Sony they were.

 

[David - Sydney]

You CAN Correct It In Post, but . . .

. . . . there is no free lunch. I hear this about 20 times a day and it's true: "Yes, it has a lot of distortion, but that's easy to correct in post." It's a totally true statement. Unfortunately, way too often, the complete statement goes like this: "I got it because it has [...]

www.lensrentals.com

An interesting article from 12 years ago and it reminds me of what a loss Roger was when stepped back from the discourse in general.
The question is whether resolution is the only issue for the distortion which is digitally corrected….

 

[roby17269]

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.
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.

Hmmm? There are 3 50mm and 3 85mm lenses in RF (same in EF). And 2 35mm (but not the one I want )
AFAIK the 24-105 2.8 Z is digitally corrected on the wide end. I don't know about the 70-200 2.8 Z but I would be surprised if it needed digital corrections since tele lenses have naturally less distortion to begin with.

We see some comments in this forum about users preferring optical correction without clear justification but feelings matter.

If we agree that digitally corrected lenses require more stretching, then Roger Cicala has shown that that degrades resolution. It is a small difference but it is not just feelings.
I also agree that feelings do matter: this is my hobby and if Canon wants my money, then they do need to tickle my fancy, so to speak. It looks like this year DJI and Hasselblad will get my dollars (DJI already has). I am perfectly aware that I am but a nano-blip on Canon's bottom line, so they will ignore my hurt feelings

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.

There have always been fan bois from different brands polluting other brands' discussions. That is across the board. Canon fan bois are not innocent... Not sure why this matters though.

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.

It's not only cost-conscious buyers though... I would be interested in 2 of the latest Sigma's offerings (35 1.2 and 200 2 - I had the 200 2 EF and loved it ) but they are currently not options for me since I do not intend to add a 3rd system to my photographic arsenal and I am not yet at the point where I'd consider moving off of Canon.
I stay with Canon because I like the R5 and some lenses. But I am sure that I would be able to adapt to another system if I wanted to. After all my other system is significantly different in ergonomic terms from Canon... and I can use both. Personally, I do think that the ergonomics argument is overblown

 

[koenkooi]

I don't see the R8 as an "RP Mark II". If anything, it was much closer to being the "EOS R Mark II" other than the lower resolution sensor. But it's really neither at any level of features and details. The RP is still in Canon's active catalog. The EOS R was officially discontinued shortly after the R8 was introduced.

The EOS R and EOS RP were both one-off models for Canon to test the FF MILC waters and to stave off the cries of how far behind Sony they were.

The R8 and RP have a virtually identical housing and both have a significant price difference with the next model up at their launch (R and R6II). I agree with you that the feature sets compared to their next model up differs a lot between the RP and R8. But just on looks and price difference, they are hard to tell apart.

 

[rombe3jr]

The R8 and RP have a virtually identical housing and both have a significant price difference with the next model up at their launch (R and R6II). I agree with you that the feature sets compared to their next model up differs a lot between the RP and R8. But just on looks and price difference, they are hard to tell apart.

Definitely nearly identical bodies. The RP is crippled with a severe crop in 4K 24 fps, no faster frame rates except in HD, 8 bit color not 10 bit and on the photo side a low burst rate. The R8 added the same sensor as the R6 II, all the cons are pros listed above. It’s roughly double the price though. If you only shoot stills and don’t need 10+ burst mode, light on the video, don’t need slow motion, minimal low light video and know how to expose well then the RP should do. Fantastic price, looks like refurbs are still available at only $520.

 

[koenkooi]

Definitely nearly identical bodies. The RP is crippled with a severe crop in 4K 24 fps, no faster frame rates except in HD, 8 bit color not 10 bit and on the photo side a low burst rate. The R8 added the same sensor as the R6 II, all the cons are pros listed above. It’s roughly double the price though. If you only shoot stills and don’t need 10+ burst mode, light on the video, don’t need slow motion, minimal low light video and know how to expose well then the RP should do. Fantastic price, looks like refurbs are still available at only $520.

The RP pretty much disables autofocus in 4k video mode as well. I loved shooting with it, but having the R8 now, I won't go back

 

[m4ndr4ke]

It’s roughly double the price though.

Currently, but not on their respective announcements.
The RP was released at 1299 USD with the adapter, the R8 at 1499 USD body only.

They were released at relatively similar prices, if we consider covid 19 and the shortage of raw materials for semiconductors.

The bodies are essentially the same, the only difference I've noticed is at the top, around the multifunction hot shoe. The R8 is a clear successor to the EOS RP, but with modern internals.
The RP is slow, but it just took what Canon had at the time: Digic 8 and the sensor of the 6D Mark II.
Digic X debuted only a year later, and the 1DX Mark II used dual processors, so there were not a lot of fast cameras on Canon's line-up.

I bought one about three months ago, for slightly less than €400. It helps me as a second camera, and it's been enough.

 

[tareqphoto]

If you have the choice which option will you choose?

1. R5 Mark II + R6 Mark III

2. R3 + R7 Mark II

3. R1 + R8 Mark II [or R10 latest version]

Think wisely and answer.

 

[Eloniel]

If you have the choice which option will you choose?

1. R5 Mark II + R6 Mark III

2. R3 + R7 Mark II

3. R1 + R8 Mark II [or R10 latest version]

Think wisely and answer.

4. R5 MK II or R6 Mk III + R7 MK II

 

[David - Sydney]

Definitely nearly identical bodies. The RP is crippled with a severe crop in 4K 24 fps, no faster frame rates except in HD, 8 bit color not 10 bit and on the photo side a low burst rate. The R8 added the same sensor as the R6 II, all the cons are pros listed above. It’s roughly double the price though. If you only shoot stills and don’t need 10+ burst mode, light on the video, don’t need slow motion, minimal low light video and know how to expose well then the RP should do. Fantastic price, looks like refurbs are still available at only $520.

RP was definitely worth being a second FF body for me. I use it for astro as well in manual focus for star trails or time lapse.
Just wish it could be powered by USB. It can charge via USB but can't run with USB power :-(

I will use it topside on a small boat with my 100-500mm for whales breaching next week. Center point focus is sufficient (I hope).
My R5 would be better but it will be safely tucked inside a housing as underwater is the primary use.

 

[Uneternal]

My guess is the "new style of camera" could be the retro-style camera that's expected to be released on the 50th birthday of the Canon AE-1. That would be April 2026. And if we're lucky it gets the same internals like the R6 Mark III.

 

[David_B]

A wild speculation/ guess/ question on my side: will the R8mkii one day inherit the 32 MP sensor?

Unlikely is my guess. The different sensor resolutions helps Canon segment the market,

If you only want 24MP, R8.
If you want more than 24MP, say 30-something MP, R6.
If you want the most MP Canon offers, R5.

If the R8II had the same sensor as the R6III, less motivation for people to buy the more expensive R6III.

All about money.

 

[Quack]

It's true but it's enlightened consumers role to push manufacturers to improve their products...

Which is why Canon and no doubt other camera brands get lots of input from professional photographers. Enlightened consumers, you see, are out there taking thousands of photos and are not "forum warriors." Sure, a few folks here, like Alan and a few others, are very expert, but the are clearly the exception, not the rule.

 

[rombe3jr]

Which is why Canon and no doubt other camera brands get lots of input from professional photographers. Enlightened consumers, you see, are out there taking thousands of photos and are not "forum warriors." Sure, a few folks here, like Alan and a few others, are very expert, but the are clearly the exception, not the rule.

Probably a sad truth that the business is making cameras that the most buyers want. Which may not necessarily be for those making the most art.

 

[P-visie]

Probably a sad truth that the business is making cameras that the most buyers want. Which may not necessarily be for those making the most art.

Please explain what is the “most art” and what is missing in Canon’s line up that is preventing you from making the “most art”?