Canon EOS R6 Mark II – Here are some more specifications

[unfocused]

Low megapixels is not a negative, it's a positive and desirable aspect for low light event or portrait photographers to get the cleanest high iso images. I chose an R6 over an R5 to get better low light performance, it's a superior camera in this one regard, just like the 6D was over the 5d mk iii. The 6 series has always been about great low light performance, it's always been a superior low light series that's somehow usually overlooked as a worse than 5 series camera, to me it's a better camera for my uses (low light), and cheaper so it's a win win. I just hope with the higher R6 II's 24 megapixels it'll be as iso clean as the R6

If it works for you, great. But, honestly in my experience (1Dx II, 1Dx III, several 5Ds, R5, R, R3) I have never been able to see a significant difference in noise performance between lower and higher resolution sensors of the same or similar generation. I currently shoot an R3 and an R5 side by side and without looking at the EXIF I would be hard pressed to find a difference between the two.

 

[unfocused]

I've actually been quite happy with the 1.6 crop because I shoot with primes and am fine with losing some resolution in order to get a different perspective sometimes.

Yes, I often use the 1.6 crop for small birds. With the R5 the resulting image is not much less resolution than a 7DII.

 

[unfocused]

I have learned that this forum is full of know it all’s and people who do nothing in their lives, from time to time I like to pop in here make a post and wait for Mr. narcissist to comment back he’s very predictable and so are many others in here, they literally just want something to complain about and or fight about. Their cameras are their lives and probably mostly collecting dust.

Just to set the record straight. The comment that got you into trouble was the suggestion that Canon failed to accurately predict sales of the R3 and had a bunch of R3 sensors sitting around that they needed to use up, so they were putting them into the R6. Clearly a ridiculous proposition since it would require that Canon is so poorly managed that they would be unable to accurately predict demand and would compound that error by continuing to make sensors which there was no demand for. @neuroanatomist pointed out that the total sales of the R6 far exceeds those of the R3, so using up sensors in that manner makes even less sense, since they could not possibly have that many sensors sitting around

While @neuroanatomist takes issue with the idea that Canon might use the same sensor in the R6II. I don't really have an opinion on that. In fact I think it is quite likely that they might use the same or similar sensor. But, that wasn't the point, although you have since tried to pretend it was.

 

[fox40phil]

So you believe that Canon is cannibalizing current sales of their high end products (R3), in order to stock up on enough sensors to be able to introduce the same one in a future lower priced product? Yeah that seems like an airtight logical case there.

It was done the same way with the last top end camera ... there will be still features only for the R3/1 to let them in their place.

 

[KiagiJ]

If it works for you, great. But, honestly in my experience (1Dx II, 1Dx III, several 5Ds, R5, R, R3) I have never been able to see a significant difference in noise performance between lower and higher resolution sensors of the same or similar generation. I currently shoot an R3 and an R5 side by side and without looking at the EXIF I would be hard pressed to find a difference between the two.

Reviews seem to suggest it only benefits iso 12800 and higher this generation. Sometimes i have to go to 25600 or 51200 at a night event freezing candids in terrible light! If you don't go to 12800+ i understand it's not a big difference

 

[Kharan]

I nailed it. I’m guessing it’ll have the R5’s control scheme and body, to justify the $500-1,000 extra that it’ll cost over the mark I. Canon wants to improve on the old X/H scheme used by Nikon years ago, two cameras with identical bodies and many core specs, one fitted for speed, and the other for resolution. It’d make total sense. So, the R8 would need to replace both the R and RP, with moderate cost and a feature set clearly beneath the R6, which will eventually become the stepping stone into “pro” RF.

 

[neuroanatomist]

While @neuroanatomist takes issue with the idea that Canon might use the same sensor in the R6II. I don't really have an opinion on that.

I wouldn’t say I ‘take issue’ with the idea, in the sense that I have a problem with them doing so. I doubt Canon will (and maybe that’s exactly what you meant), but as I stated if they do that’s great for R6II buyers.

 

[David - Sydney]

It is not technically feasible to get DSLR battery life from a mirrorless camera.

Technically, it would be similar to the same battery life as if the DLSR was used in liveview if the mirrorless body was also using the rear screen (not the EVF). Noting that the DLSRs were using lower capacity batteries in the past ie the N variant - which is backwards compatible - was only released with the R5/6,

CFe cards and inefficient processors (compared to Sony) + IBIS are the main difference for heat generation/battery life cf Canon DLSRs. Newer algorithms for AF covering the whole sensor/eye-AF may also contribute using more power.

 

[unfocused]

I wouldn’t say I ‘take issue’ with the idea, in the sense that I have a problem with them doing so. I doubt Canon will (and maybe that’s exactly what you meant), but as I stated if they do that’s great for R6II buyers.

Yes, I just meant that you doubt Canon will do that. I kind of think they might.

 

[David - Sydney]

Since Canon makes their own sensors, they would adjust sensor manufacturing output to match demand.

Canon makes lithography equipment and clearly designs the sensors/processors but are they manufacturing stacked/BSI sensors (fab) as well?
Is their lithography equipment business unit supporting stacked/BSI processor designs?

 

[unfocused]

Reviews seem to suggest it only benefits iso 12800 and higher this generation. Sometimes i have to go to 25600 or 51200 at a night event freezing candids in terrible light! If you don't go to 12800+ i understand it's not a big difference

Got it. You are probably better at post-processing than me. I've found that once I get above 12800 the choice becomes one of "crappy" vs. "really crappy."

 

[jeffa4444]

Owning the R, R5 and R6 I can honestly say I never miss the top LCD screen when switching between the three cameras. The MP boost of 4MP is not enough to upgrade from the R6 to the MKII camera however improvements to AF and AF tracking, digital tele-converter might be.

 

[KiagiJ]

Got it. You are probably better at post-processing than me. I've found that once I get above 12800 the choice becomes one of "crappy" vs. "really crappy."

I just use the R6 in-camera jpeg noise reduction to max, does an amazing job, also tactics like black & white to remove the observation of color noise


This is iso 40000 !!! in camera noise reduction, boat party, f/1.4 1/200th second to help stop boat motion

 

[navastronia]

I just use the R6 in-camera jpeg noise reduction to max, does an amazing job, also tactics like black & white to remove the observation of color noise


This is iso 40000 !!! in camera noise reduction, boat party, 1/200th second to help with stop boat motion

Oh yeah, I get to ISO 12800 and I'm like . . . hmmmmmm, yes, the client will receive a BW for this one

 

[David - Sydney]

Continue reading...

- Has there been any real world advantages to processing Dual Pixel Raw images?
- A digital teleconverter would be just a cropping tool - perhaps a selectable crop ratio vs current 1.6 crop. Some competitions don't allow significant cropping and especially for underwater photography where you can't change the lens or necessarily get closer then an adjustable crop could be useful but it is pretty niche. Internal upscaling feature would be less likely as post-processing should always be better quality using leading edge algorithms.
- Would Hybrid Auto be just using Lv mode?
- Cloud Raw Processing sounds less useful... maybe DPP in the cloud when you use Canon's cloud storage?
- RF/RF-s lens support (and adapted EF/EF-s) is standard for all R mount bodies.

 

[navastronia]

- Has there been any real world advantages to processing Dual Pixel Raw images?
- A digital teleconverter would be just a cropping tool - perhaps a selectable crop ratio vs current 1.6 crop. Some competitions don't allow significant cropping and especially for underwater photography where you can't change the lens or necessarily get closer then an adjustable crop could be useful but it is pretty niche. Internal upscaling feature would be less likely as post-processing should always be better quality using leading edge algorithms.
- Would Hybrid Auto be just using Lv mode?
- Cloud Raw Processing sounds less useful... maybe DPP in the cloud when you use Canon's cloud storage?
- RF/RF-s lens support (and adapted EF/EF-s) is standard for all R mount bodies.

Yeah, the features list is kinda wack

 

[Skux]

Low megapixels is not a negative, it's a positive and desirable aspect for low light event or portrait photographers to get the cleanest high iso images. I chose an R6 over an R5 to get better low light performance, it's a superior camera in this one regard, just like the 6D was over the 5d mk iii. The 6 series has always been about great low light performance, it's always been a superior low light series that's somehow usually overlooked as a worse than 5 series camera, to me it's a better camera for my uses (low light), and cheaper so it's a win win. I just hope with the higher R6 II's 24 megapixels it'll be as iso clean as the R6

This myth is debunked regularly but unfortunately still persists. Higher megapixel cameras only appear noisier because their resolution lets you see more detail. Two identical photos from a 12mp or 50mp camera will capture the same amount of light regardless of how big or small the photosites are.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, I just meant that you doubt Canon will do that. I kind of think they might.

I was surprised they put the 1D X III sensor in the R6. Perhaps I’ll be so again.

 

[KiagiJ]

This myth is debunked regularly but unfortunately still persists. Higher megapixel cameras only appear noisier because their resolution lets you see more detail. Two identical photos from a 12mp or 50mp camera will capture the same amount of light regardless of how big or small the photosites are.

Oh yeah I forgot I probably watched a Tool video on this. As long as the sensor size is the same, you can downscale a 45mp R5 to 20mp R6 size and it'll look as clean, apparently. So the upcoming 100-120 megapixel camera will be as clean as an R6 if scaled down to 20mp, that's cool

 

[KiagiJ]

It is not technically feasible to get DSLR battery life from a mirrorless camera.

I actually did some wildlife photography today, R7, mechanical shutter to avoid bs electronic warping, over 2000 shots, 2hrs, 1 battery, didn't notice how much drained when ready to leave as it didn't even flash red