We keep hearing about the Canon EOS R6 Mark III coming in 2024

[Loswr]

Wait, are they releasing them with a gap of decreasing prime numbers of years? What comes after 2??

If that’s the progression Canon wants to use, then there will never be an R6III. Two is the lowest prime number.

 

[David - Sydney]

I only ever use M. I also "hike" with it. But I switch it off most of the time because I want to save battery life, so a top LCD would be blank anyway

My R5's top LCD is on showing the mode even when the power is switched off. Settings are shown when turned on.
Canon wouldn't do that unless the power requirements are tiny or insignificant so I can't see battery life being extended much by turning it off.

Canon's power usage is not as efficient as Sony (battery capacity vs CIPA specs).
Could be SW or CPU efficiency (or both) so hopefully a new R5ii processor in the Digic X family will improve the overall numbers.

 

[MK402]

Hoping for the C70ii announcement soon.

Wishing for a C50/C60. A mini C70/C400 version. A true cinema compact B cam. With one mini XLR input, etc...

 

[MK402]

I concur…. I’d really like to see Canon put something out to compete with the Sony FX3. Perhaps the R3 sensor and processor, lose the evf and mechanical shutter to save cost and develop an xlr top handle sold separately. But for the love of all things holy put a full size HDMI port on it.

 

[Navism]

If Canon fines tune their sensor for R6 iii, they can use R5, R3 or R.
They can make R sensor 30.1 MP and make it faster, full frame 4K60p. Video and Still are both great.
R5 sensor is fast enough, just use new processor would not overheat.
R3 sensor would be faster way to make R6iii.

 

[mpphoto]

If only it got a top LCD, I would use it as a second body, along my future R5 II. I'd hate having to look thru the EVF or at the rear LCD in order to check my main settings. It's so much easier from above.
"Only" 24 MP? No issue at all.
If not, R5 II X 2.

I don't want the R6 line to get a top LCD because that means it'll probably end up with the mode dial like the R and R5 have. I found it annoying to change modes on the R because I had to press Mode first, then move the dial. I normally use Av, but may also use Tv or M depending on the situation. With the R6, I know I just have to move the dial one or two clicks. No having to make sure I pressed Mode first before moving the dial.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

We shall not discuss that. Now that Canon is ahead on DR, and with Sony bringing us a global shutter that costs DR at base ISO, the trolls have moved on from DR and so should we. Right?

Now, MP matters most. I mean it didn't when Canon had the highest MP FF sensors. But now it's a whole different story. MP >> DR.

Jokes aside, I think they (Sony and Canon) have already reached the limit of what they can do with the dynamic range, so Sony started sacrificing some of the DR to speed (global shutter) and cost.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

In fact, my base ISO is now always set to 400. I don't typically shoot below 400 because I prefer how it lifts the shadows and blacks.

Hard to argue with personal preferences, but technically the shadows at ISO 400 will have more noise than at ISO 100 on your R3. Generally you'll be getting more noise if conditions allow to shoot at ISO 100 but you shoot at ISO 400 instead of 100.

 

[Loswr]

I don't want the R6 line to get a top LCD because that means it'll probably end up with the mode dial like the R and R5 have. I found it annoying to change modes on the R because I had to press Mode first, then move the dial. I normally use Av, but may also use Tv or M depending on the situation. With the R6, I know I just have to move the dial one or two clicks. No having to make sure I pressed Mode first before moving the dial.

I have mode changes assigned the M.Fn button, and modes restricted to the ones I use (M and C1-3). For me, far better than a physical dial.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

I've tried them all, my friend. Literally everything you could imagine. The R5 was just too inconsistent for us for weddings. Even our friends who shoot with the R5 are inconsistent. The files would just fall apart editing them and it would take too much time and work. ... The R6 and R3 are just smooth and steady.

There used to be online testing that would provide color maps of the sensor to show color accuracy. Does anyone still do that?

But this sounds worse than just the colour accuracy being out. Are there any reviews that highlight this? I could believe no because that would actually require taking photos rather than some AI writing content.

 

[Kharan]

0.8 stops of DR difference between the Z6III and Z6II will be noticeable when shooting landscapes, albeit marginally. But it's a 1.5 stop difference between the Z6III and R3 which is quite big. If Canon R6III has the same sensor as the R3, it'll beat Nikon in dynamic range by quite a noticeable margin.

It'll be interesting to see how Nikon suddenly lags behind in the dynamic range race!

Oh, Nikon fanboys will be very salty indeed. If Canon can put a stacked sensor in a sub-$3,000 body it’ll be a coup.

 

[Maximilian]

We still think that Canon will concentrate on releasing and meeting demand for the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II and the EOS R6 Mark III will come in early 2025. However, multiple sources claim that it is indeed coming this year.
...
Take the EOS R6 Mark III coming in 2024 with the proverbial grain of salt. We still think it's an Q1 2025 camera announcement.

I will do so, with the proverbial grain of salt.
Esp. as long as I don't see a (rumoured) spec list that shows significant improvements over the Mark II.
Of course, Nikon made a move with the Z6 III, so Canon should/could react here. But in 2024? Maybe...

 

[ironfreak]

I just want 30 MP R6 III ... Let the other specs remain same.. Then its a perfect camera for almost every shoot!
May be the EOS R become R6 III with that resolution and R6II specs with improved speed

Let R6 III compete with Z6 III and rumoured A7V

 

[memoriaphoto]

@memoriaphoto Here are a few screenshots of some recent work I have in a folder on my desktop. Ranges from bright, dark, green, orange, blue, B&W, inside, outside, etc. For weddings, the results are consistently excellent. I never have to worry about the setting, whether it's indoors, outdoors, in a church, or any other location. Even at 10,000 ISO, the noise correction is flawless. In fact, my base ISO is now always set to 400. I don't typically shoot below 400 because I prefer how it lifts the shadows and blacks.

Nice shots! Good work!

I was just curious if you weren't able to get these tones with the R5? I am sure the R3 is even better (Canon has a tendecy to improve color balance and WB algorithms in the high-end models) but since you mentioned that the R5 had the worst tones you ever experienced it caught my attention.

I haven't worked with the R5 but the R6, R8 and R7 so wanted to know how the R5 differs from the R6 for example. Worse WB? Worse colors? As for the R3 I have noticed from all the samples out there that it seems to be a lot cooler than other models so maybe more neutral and easier starting point? I prefer the old school Canon warm-red though

Interesting about ISO 400 since I believe many Canon files are crushed in the shadows - especially with some of their latest lenses.

 

[ironfreak]

The R3's are a remarkable camera. I use them for weddings. It's like a cheat code for skin tones and WB. In my opinion, the R5's that we had prior produced the worst tones of any camera we shot with in our lifetimes.

I agree on this point. R5 in my experience produced weird magenta skin tones. You have to tweak the white balance manually and then it works fine. But by default I just hated R5 tones. Even my old 6D mark II has lovely results in terms of colors.

 

[memoriaphoto]

I agree on this point. R5 in my experience produced weird magenta skin tones. You have to tweak the white balance manually and then it works fine. But by default I just hated R5 tones. Even my old 6D mark II has lovely results in terms of colors.

That is interesting. I remember I thought the R6 was too magenta in the skin but some say it has better output than the R5. The R6 needed 3rd party profiles when working in LR. Color Fidelity profiles are quite good.

I find the R8 to be a good balance. They have dialed back the magenta without loosing "life" in the skin. Personally though I wish they could go back to the old school approach. The original 5D and 6D had awesome skintones right out of the gate with minimal tweaks needed. And my old 1Ds MK3 (and 1Ds MK2) produced great looking skin in ANY light. It's almost like the CFA was tweaked to make files look good and not win awards in technical charts.

 

[scyrene]

I have mode changes assigned the M.Fn button, and modes restricted to the ones I use (M and C1-3). For me, far better than a physical dial.

I never change mode so have no preference

 

[Chig]

Stacked sensor, CF express card and useable pre capture would be ideal for me and I'd definitely buy one to replace my R6ii
24MP is all I want (I have the RF200-800 and I find it's a nearly ideal combination for bird photography) and I don't want a top LCD which I would never use and I like the 3 control dials of my R6ii as is.
I would prefer the stills/video switch on the right hand and power switch on the left though.

 

[Del Paso]

I don't want the R6 line to get a top LCD because that means it'll probably end up with the mode dial like the R and R5 have. I found it annoying to change modes on the R because I had to press Mode first, then move the dial. I normally use Av, but may also use Tv or M depending on the situation. With the R6, I know I just have to move the dial one or two clicks. No having to make sure I pressed Mode first before moving the dial.

I can easily agree with you!
My ideal configuration would be a top LCD on the right, and a physical mode dial on the left, just like on a 5D IV.
I, like you, dislike the R5's mode dial. But even more the lack of the top LCD.
And I almost never change modes...

 

[koenkooi]

I've tried them all, my friend. Literally everything you could imagine. The R5 was just too inconsistent for us for weddings. Even our friends who shoot with the R5 are inconsistent. The files would just fall apart editing them and it would take too much time and work. If the photographer has has a natural style of editing then more than likely they are going to beat their head against the wall doing volume wedding work with the R5. The R6 and R3 are just smooth and steady. I'm sure there's some out there that are shooting weddings consistently with them, but very far and few between that I've seen. The R3 is like a cheat code for workflow and production with natural styles.

My perception of the R5 is coloured by the fact that the M6II/R7 sensor gets horrible, zombie like skintones in Adobe products. For me the R5 is the one with the 'good' colours
And I'm a hobbyist, the only people in my pictures are my family and people in the background of said family shots