The Canon EOS R6 Mark III will be good, but not revolutionary

[Michael Clark]

I personally think there are likely more people who already have moved from DSLRs to mirrorless than those who are still on DSLRs but are also in the market to buy a new camera at this point. Obviously there are people who have DSLRs but have dropped out of the camera market for whatever reason, but they are irrelevant since they aren't in the market. This is my guess though, and I certainly don't insist on it.

I agree that the number of switchers in general is probably low (at least lower than some folks would like to believe), but I think a switch to mirrorless and a change in lens mount would prompt more switchers (in whatever direction) than the usual "I'll just get the new version of my current camera".

I know of at least one fairly high end (for his geographical market) portraitist who is still shooting with 5D Mark IV cameras and considering a switch to RF cameras as his bodies are starting to show their age a bit in terms of wear and tear. He replaced his 5D Mark II with his first 5D Mark IV around 2018. His second 5D IV was bought used around 2020.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yeah, have to imagine the majority of the AF improvements from the last two years in the R1/R5mkii are added. Going to be bummed if Eye Control doesn't make it down to the R6 mkii as well.

Eye Control requires additional hardware in the viewfinder that has significant increased manufacturing costs. It's not just a firmware/software addition.

Are you conflating Eye Control AF (where the camera detects the shooters eye movements to select the AF point) with Eye detection AF (where the camera detects eyes in subjects within the frame of the camera's field of view)?

 

[Michael Clark]

Canon will use their judgment when designing the feature set of the R6II, but my desires are simple. I want the autofocus and sensor of the R1 with the R5/6 form factor while retaining as much functionality as possible, considering the physical constraints of the smaller body. I don't need the additional resolution of the R5, and I'd like the vertical grip to be optional.

It's more likely to be a derivative of the R3 sensor than the R1 sensor.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'd be amazed if they reused the R1 sensor so soon though. Maybe for the R6IV.

By which time people will be complaining that they're not instead using the sensor for the rumored to be released soon R1 Mark II...

 

[Michael Clark]

Somehow, Canon always leaves a spec out that everybody is waiting for. In this case the Eye Controlled AF. It’s a great feature for all kinds of photographers. It’s easy to implement, but they don’t do it. WHY???
I (as a photographer) don’t need 6k instead of 4k. I couldn’t care less. We need handy features to make our work easier and output better. EC-AF is one of those features.

Additional hardware costs real additional money. It's not a firmware/software feature. The sensors in the viewfinder needed for Eye Control AF are an added real cost per each body manufactured, not a one-time R&D cost per model to adapt firmware/software to be compatible with a new body.

 

[Toni]

At this point, the most strange thing is why R7 (apsc) has 32 MP and R6 mk3 (full frame) will have 24 MP. It's ridiculous!
PD: And R7 has good image quality.

 

[michkhol]

At this point, the most strange thing is why R7 (apsc) has 32 MP and R6 mk3 (full frame) will have 24 MP. It's ridiculous!
PD: And R7 has good image quality.

Full frame 24MP has bigger photosites, meaning better low-light performance and less noise, especially beneficial for video.