Is The Canon EOS R6 Mark III Coming in May?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
-
- Tags
- eos r6 mark iii
He would just most probably say, that it took Canon only 9 years to get back to the resolution of the 5D IV. But who knows, maybe in your book, the 24 mpx is still better than the R6 20 mpx, which is definitely better than e.g. my original compact Canon G2 4 mpx resolution, so why to request more?
It might be more af a psychological than a practical thing, but 20 mpx resolution of the original R6 was the reason, why we considered it being a downgrade from 5D IV back then. So we went R5 route instead. Do we need those 45 mpx? Most probably not. Nowadays we are considering adding R6 III once released. Each of us has our own "sweet spot" of the functionality / features we consider important.
Upvote
0
It looks like you’re conflating MP and resolution, which are not the same thing.
An R6II will give you more useable resolution in the same shot than a 5DIV, due to the much improved low-pass filter in front of the lens.
While I take Canons marketing claims of that with a grain of salt, I noticed it myself when using the 1Dx3 and RP side by side, the images from the 1Dx3 had more detail than the RP ones, despite being 20MP vs 26MP.
And that is beside the AF actually focusing on what I want, and succeeding without having to spend hours doing AFMA on your lenses.
Upvote
0
Maybe in your book, resolution means the same thing as megapixels. In my book, resolution means resolution. For example, the 24MP R3 delivered more spatial resolution than the 30 MP 5DIV. The reason for that is the improved AA filter used on the R3.
A 6-series camera being a downgrade from a 5-series camera? Who’da thunk?!?
Incidentally, the R6 used the 20 MP sensor from the 1DXIII that was the first to feature the improved AA filter. That means the spatial resolution was close to the 5DIV (delivering something like the equivalent of 28MP on a sensor like that in the 5DIV). So the R5 you bought was definitely an upgrade in terms of resolution, but the R6 would not really have been a downgrade.
Upvote
0
He would just most probably say, that it took Canon only 9 years to get back to the resolution of the 5D IV. But who knows, maybe in your book, the 24 mpx is still better than the R6 20 mpx, which is definitely better than e.g. my original compact Canon G2 4 mpx resolution, so why to request more?
It might be more af a psychological than a practical thing, but 20 mpx resolution of the original R6 was the reason, why we considered it being a downgrade from 5D IV back then. So we went R5 route instead. Do we need those 45 mpx? Most probably not. Nowadays we are considering adding R6 III once released. Each of us has our own "sweet spot" of the functionality / features we consider important.
Needs can have rational and irrational factors.
I can think of cases where people actually need higher pixel count,
architecture and large prints are one story, high fashion magazines
another, fine art large prints another, nature photography and wildlife
cropping at larger distances, unpredictable events with client
expectations for acceptable level of quality when cropped etc.
In many cases though, this is endless insatiability, getting spoiled by
technology with minimal to zero actual benefit where this sense of need
is artificially created by by marketing and propaganda creating the
false perception of benefit, thriving on user ignorance and consumerism.
Large percentage of people who buy cameras are clueless of Nyquist, diffraction,
downscaling algorithms affecting original image texture, pixel fill
factor, pixel saturation properties, sensor development complications,
power, processing and thermals etc. etc. and automatically assume higher
pixel count equates to higher image quality or overall camera user
benefit. It does not.
In my experience, 6 micron pixel size is the optimal balance for pixel
size between image acuity/detail and image quality & overall camera
performance. Looks like some decision making folks at Canon and Arri
agree for some reason. This gives you 24MP/6K on FF and 50Mp/8K on 43 mm
quasi-medium format, like GFX.
This spatial sampling density already gives more detailed image than
equivalent film formats.
In today's times of massive propaganda and consumerism it is wise to ask
oneself "Do I really need this or I just have been mislead to think I
do".
Upvote
0
I'm confused by your post. I have a R6ii and the buffer in my camera can take over 100 images in raw and more in C-raw. That equates to approximatly 2.5 seconds of buffer time at 40fps ES and nearly double that in C-Raw. At 12fps the buffer is nearly a 9 second burst in RAW.
The R3's buffer is a lot bigger, it's 150 Raw files. So at 30 fps ES, that's a buffer duration of 5 seconds. In C-Raw, that should approximatly double to nearly 10 seconds of burst. In 1st curtain shutter mode / 12 fps, that's a lengthy 12.5 seconds of full chat buffer in RAW and nearly double that in C-Raw/ The new R1 has a larger buffer becasue it shoots at 40fps in ES. it's gives a little longer 5.75 seconds of ES 40 fps burst before the buffer fills.
I'm also not sure what you mean about the overpriced and missing primes. Something can not by virtue be missing and overpriced at the same time.
If you re referring to the EF variants then you really should go and have a long think about your life. Both lenses are exemplary in terms of their size, weight and image quality. Sure, there are always areas where a refresh might yeild some room for improvement. But new doesn't always mean better.
Sure Sony has their new 300mm f2.8 that is smaller and lighter than Canon's older EF version, but unfortunatly you have to use those horrid Sony cameras with them (ok, I'm jesting). The reality is that the Canon primes are the ones that set the bar, not the other way around.
The RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS is the RF replacement for the 300mm f2.8 prime. That's the end of the story, if you are a full time pro then the new 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8 lenses have a massive benfit over the previous options.
Upvote
0
Hoping for a better pre-capture like Sony's one with adjustable time/number of shots and the option to customise a button to toggle it on and off.
Too much to hope for but I will ask anyway: move the stills/video switch to the righthand side or even better delete it and make the movie button replace it with full functionality
Too much to hope for but I will ask anyway: move the stills/video switch to the righthand side or even better delete it and make the movie button replace it with full functionality
Upvote
0
Guys, I think, that you are a bit nitpicking here
I think that I can understand what you mean and can even agree. It ws a shortcut to megapixel count. But Canon itself, on their website ot R5, states "45 megapixel resolution". For me, the best resolution bump was actually in starting to use L lenses As for the downgrade from 5DIV, once again, plain shortcut to megapixel comparison for the sake of a cropability for the wedding shoots. I don't shoot weddings, so asked my wife - she does not crop so much, as we expected us doing. That's also why we are ready to buy, or even switch to 6D III, replacing our R5, where 45 mpx we might not fully utilise, as well as 8K video we never ever used.
Upvote
0
The glass in front of the sensor can kill so much IQ that even the best sensor cannot recover again.... For me, the best resolution bump was actually in starting to use L lenses
That's what I always tell friends when they want a gear advice.
Personally, I came from 5Dmk3 and mk4 getting a R6mk2, and I was really stunned how much better my photos became with the R6mk2.
It's the new AA filters, it's the on-sensor AF with no more need to AFMA, and it's also the better sensor tech.
Upvote
0
I'd argue the it's more than a nitpick, conceptually. I do get your point that stating 'resolution' can be taken to mean 'MP count', though.Guys, I think, that you are a bit nitpicking here
But resolution is the more important of the two, technically. If you take 'the same' picture with the R3 (24 MP) and 5DIV (or R, 30 MP) and compare them at the same print size, the R3 image will have more detail. If you compare them on the same monitor, the 30 MP image will 'look bigger' (especially if you 'zoom in' to 100%) but it will actually have less detail.
Exactly. That's true in the sense you mean it (the lens) but the AA filter is also 'glass in front of the sensor' (well, lithium niobate crystals but not all the elements in modern lenses are glass, either). So the analogy holds – the 30 MP 5DIV had a less sharp piece of glass right in front of it than more recent sensors.
Upvote
0
Beside cropability, the R5ii also has precapture, 14bit files when shooting without mechanical shutter, eye controlled AF plus priority subject AF - all would be useful for wedding photographers IMO over the R5. For events and sports photographers, the R5ii would be a big improvement over the R5 but they aren't my main genres so upgrading is not important for me. I have only used 8k a couple of times.
The R6ii also has pre-capture but it is unlikely that the R6iii will have eye controlled AF and a big maybe for priority AF subject. It will definitely be cheaper than the R5iii
Upvote
0
I agree, I migrated from a 5D3 to an R8 and found than a the newer 24mp (low AA filtered) sensor far out resolved the images I was seeing from my 5D3. The images had a lot more detail than i was used to seeing, suprisingly so. So much that a number of my beloved and trusted L lenses (the older ones) were now turning in soft images when shot wide open. Two examples of this, my EF 35mm f1.4 L (mk1) and my EF 24-70mm f2.8 L (mk1). Both lenses I knew intimately, but were now giving me soft images. It wasn't a fault in the lens, it was the new sensor out resolving my older optics. I reluctantly moved to mkII versions of both lenses, I still think that both of these mk1 lenses are superior lenses except for sharpness. Hey, apparently that's progress.
Moving to mirrorless from DSLR has caused me to re-evaluate my entire lens portfolio and the images i'm seeing from my R6ii are the cleanest and most detailed I've ever seen. While the R6ii isn't a perfect camera, it is by far the best camera I've ever had the pleasure of using. There are things and situations I can shoot now that were the things of fantasy or wishful thinking only a few years previously.
I've never had the need for a R5 or R5ii, I've been happy with the 22-24mp range for more years than I care to mention. I generally prefer to move closer and fill the frame than crop heavily later, although I appreciate that it's not always possible. However, I chose the R6ii over the R5 (which was current at the time) because of the slightly superior AF and other features that I liked. When the R5ii dropped, I did seriously consider it, but I've not been a heavy user of the 40fps ES option on my R6ii...12 fps seems more than adequate for me. The whole point of the R5ii is the faster sensor readout and it's affect in ES mode. Sure a few movie things too....which I'm really not interested in. For me, the R5ii is expensive for not a lot of features i would actually use and it's main feature, the 45mp sensor isn't something that appeals to me. I actually prefer the R6x range of cameras. Which is not something I'd ever thought i would say after being a 5Dx fan boy for so long.
Upvote
0
Both the R6ii and R5ii out resolve early L lenses. If you take a top tier L lens from 20 years ago, it is highly likely that the R6ii and R5ii will out resolve their optical resolution capabilities. It's not the fact that these are "older" or badly designed lenses, Canon were always capable of designing lenses that resovled the same capabilities that they are today. It's jus that the design brief or resolution requirements have gone up recently with the higher resolution sensors. Many of the older L lenses were designed pre-digital for the original EOS film cameras and the film's resolution was the deciding factor. The 22mp sensors with the older design of AA filter was the upper limit of this resolving standard. 0.5 on the MFT scale seems common for lenses in this category, where as the more modern (mkII) lenses seem to come in at over 0.8 (or higher) on the MFT scale.Guys, I think, that you are a bit nitpicking here
So a L lens is not an automatic indicator of "superior optics", especially if it's older (even pre-digital). L lenses that came after 2015 when Canon changed their optical resolution design floor are generally as good optically as the latter Rf L lenses. Many of the non L Rf lenses are optically comparible to the L variants too.
Anyone willing to drop $4K on a R5ii camera body should be considering a similar spend on their lens catalogue. Putting on a sub $500 20 year old lens isn't going to see great optical results on either camera body. lens design has had to increase it's resolution specification in recent years to well beyond what film required. One of the reasons that Canon are resistant to increasing the current camers to beyond the 24/45mp limit is the fact that Canon would have to re-design it's entire range of lenses again to meet the new lofty resolution standards. 45mp (with the low AA filter) is pretty much close to the MFT design criteria for most of the current and recent lens. The only current lenses that could resolve higher than this are the big whites. Even lenses like the legendary RF 100-500LIS will have trouble resolving beyond the current 45mp.
Upvote
0
24 MP and stacked sensor may result in a very good dynamic range despite the trade-off such a sensor brings in. But let's see the first lab results...
Upvote
0
I totally agree with you. Besides the technical "nitpicks" that aren't just nitpicks like Neuro explained about the important effect of different AA filters: I shot many years even architecture and landscape with my old 5D3, and this camera delivered great detail even in the prints (with a sharp lens, of course). And my wife made A3 (!!) prints of pictures shot with her old 12 MP Nikon DSLRs (D700, D300S) in which you can see every hairy detail, including nostril hairs
.
Upvote
0
It should also be brighter. An LCD screen uses only about 50 % of the light emitted by the background LED, because the liquid crystal molecules require linear polarized light that is created by a sandwich of two crossed polarizer filters. Since the LED emits randomly polarized photons, the first filter on top of it lets only 50 % pass through into the liquid crystal layer. (I learned that from industry researchers working on improved chemicals for LCDs.)
Upvote
0
hmmmm? So far most stacked sensors have exhibited lower (not by much) DR compared to the previous non-stacked versions. Why would you expect otherwise?
Upvote
0
Thx, I should have been more precise: I meant in comparison to higher resolving sensors discussed here (30 MP +).
Upvote
0