Early Canon EOS R6 Mark III Specifications
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
The R5 sensor to 8K mapping is 0.9375 (if I recall correctly), which seems just a bit too neat to be coincidence. Or put another way, Canon might only use 93.75% of the horizontal & vertical dimensions for capturing 8K video. What's 6.25% between friends?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 383640
Guest
The R5 uses the full width of the sensor in all video formats ONLY when recording in the DCI aspect ratio (17:9). So, for example, the resolution in 8K DCI format is 8192 x 4320. The maximum width of the photo is in pixels of the same dimensions - 8192 px. However, it is a little known fact that the R5 is not fully Full Frame when recording video in the ratio 16:9, i.e. when recording video in 16:9, the R5 does not use the entire width of the sensor, but a small crop effect occurs. So, when recording video in 8K, 4K and FullHD 16:9 ratio, the R5 does not use the full width of the sensor, while when recording in 8K and 4K in 17:9 ratio, it uses the full width of the sensor. In FullHD recording mode, unfortunately, there is no DCI (17:9) aspect ratio option in the R5, so in FullHD the R5 is never really a "real Full Frame" video camera.
Here, I hope I have clarified your doubt, i.e. your misunderstanding.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
You completely ignored that the R3 sensor is stacked and the R6ii isnt. That's a huge difference.
R3 sensor has a 5 ms readout speed for 14 bit files, while R6ii has a 14 ms for 12 bit files. This is a BIG difference for people shooting ball sports and really fast birds, as with the R6ii's sensor you are still going to see rolling shutter artifacts for very fast action. Also, the extra bit depth gives the R3 a boost when it comes to DR in lower ISOs (at ISO 100 using ES, for example, the R3 has 1.4 eV over the R6ii in the same conditions, according to Photonstophotos).
And it is not only that, the EVF performance is also impacted. Stacked sensors allow simultaneous feed to EVF while taking pictures, this means that the EVF has 0 delay even while shooting, something that is not true about non-stacked sensor cameras. This is, again, something very important for people shooting unpredictable action, it makes it much easier to track subjects that are changing directions like crazy.
Getting stacked sensors in cheaper cameras is really great for action shooters. This is the reason the Z8 and, now, the R5ii are my two favorite camera releases from the past years. And I don't even shoot action, so these releases, for me, are actually not that important (meaning I am just keeping my R5). But I actually care about the technology advances and understand that not all of them will be aimed at me, as the market is much bigger than my individual needs.
Upvote
0
- evf would then be improved over the R6 Mark II. The sensor would be better than the current R6 Mark II, and with it stacked it would be able to be used in electronic shutter mode far easier and in more use cases than the current R6 II. AF, IBIS, AF sensitivity all improving are good improvements.
We've also discussed where we can't give out too many specific details on a leaked specification in the past.
Upvote
0
A stacked sensor, presumably the better implementation of pre-shooting from R5II, and the EVF trickling down from the R5I would make enough of a difference for me to upgrade from the original R6.
Which to me is still an absolute dream of a camera and the only type of photography where I would wish for some improvement is birding.
Which to me is still an absolute dream of a camera and the only type of photography where I would wish for some improvement is birding.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, that's not what i mean. R6II series and R5 series don't just separate resolution wise, right? There's a lot more you get in R5 than only just resolution such as the EVF, bigger screen, video specs, etc. For the all type shooter, in business of photography, megapixels and price of camera do matter. Like in 6D (20mp to 6DII - 26 MP) it was welcomed. Expecting a little more resolution than 24 MP from Canon is not crime. Its not that they have not done it before. The first ff R was 30 MP.
Upvote
0
Absolutely. The EVF was me writing before I had coffee. R5I of course.
The implementation of the pre-shooting buffer was hopeful presumption.
Edited so I don't contribute to the spread of misinformation
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 383640
Guest
Something is important to someone...
To me, the difference in resolution between the 6D and the 6DII is almost completely irrelevant, but the fact that the 6DII has a tilting display with a touch interface (and the 6D does not) is incomparably more important than the difference in resolution. But I understand that resolution may be really important to someone.
Upvote
0
It's an R3 in a smaller body, minus three key features:
1) Eye-control AF
2) Smart Controller AF point selection button.
3) High-resolution EVF.
Maybe an upgrade to the Digic-X to bring it in line with the latest generation of processors.
Everything else will stay the same as in the R3, probably for $2800. Not a bad deal in my opinion.
1) Eye-control AF
2) Smart Controller AF point selection button.
3) High-resolution EVF.
Maybe an upgrade to the Digic-X to bring it in line with the latest generation of processors.
Everything else will stay the same as in the R3, probably for $2800. Not a bad deal in my opinion.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, I didn't. You missed the link and comment at the bottom of my post. All of that technology makes for an almost undetectable difference in the image, with it better at some ISOs and worse at others.
The number of instances that I've had issues with rolling shutter? 0.
I think rolling shutter is 2024's equivalent of 2014's DR - it's the new big thing to hype about when selling cameras.
I mean I get it, you've read Canon's marketing hype and regurgitated it faithfully, but the real world differences are barely detectable when doing image analysis.
Yes, people shooting unpredictable action are what Canon is aiming for with the R1 because they've built in some fantastic AI and tracking capability into the AF. The R6-III isn't going to get that AF capability.
There's also no mention of pre-shutter release buffering of images in the present spec list.
IMHO Canon are better off not releasing another R6 until they can come up with a better list of "new and improved." But who am I? Just another shadow in an obscure corner of the Internet that relatively few photographers venture into.
Upvote
0
The R5-II has a 0.5 inch OLED EVF. The most important bit of info from is the 0.76 magnification. What's really missing is what percentage of Adobe RGB the EVF is. Is the EVF 100% sRGB? 100% DCI-P3? That's actually a big deal.
You teases us! Nasty master teases us!
From what I've seen, it feels like R6 Mark II 1/2.
Upvote
0
I am genuinely and non-sarcastically happy that it isn't an issue for you! But when doing handheld focus stacks the rolling shutter will compress and expand portions of the image if your shaky hand moves parallel to the readout direction. A fast enough shutter and composing a bit wider will prevent motion blur and allow the subject to stay in frame. But the 'rubber band' like stretching in some images ruins the stack.
And IBIS actually makes this worse, on the R7 this effect is much more visible compared to the R8, more than you'd expect for the 2x difference in readout speed. I use EFCS a lot more on the R7 than the R8 due to that, despite the R7 shutter setting off seismic alarms when used.
And to continue in the stacking vein, the faster sensor in the R3, R5II and R1 allows for flash usage during stacking, making it a lot more useful for me when using in my garden.
I wish I could say rolling shutter was an issue for getting dragonfly wings in flight captured properly, but I need to succeed in getting actual shots of that first
If you aren't using the fully electronic shutter, sensor readout speed is something you can complete ignore.
Upvote
0
Totally agree with koenkooi. Rolling shutter was the primary reason why I sold my R10, which I used for birding with the RF100-400, and purchased the 800/11 for use on the R6 instead.
The original R6 has a much faster sensor readout than the R10, but when it comes to rolling shutter artifacts, there are still situations where they are very noticeable.
The original R6 has a much faster sensor readout than the R10, but when it comes to rolling shutter artifacts, there are still situations where they are very noticeable.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
