Rumored R6 Mark III Specifications
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Canon made the original R6 too good of a camera for stills only shooters (unless you need high MP I guess). From what I have seen neither the R6II nor the rumored features of the R6III would tempt me to upgrade
The R6II is a massive upgrade to the original R6, especially in video, AF performance and heat management.
Upvote
0
Would require the development and testing of a new sensor vs digging into the parts bin from a higher end camera.
Does seem like the industry as a whole has largely settled on the steps being 24, 45-50, and then 100. I'm guessing because those resolutions are relatively easy to adapt to common video resolutions with minimal cropping.
Upvote
0
Fully agree. I didn't spend a second thinking over buying the R6. But the Mk II plus a cash back, and I was in.
Different with the Mk III. I don't see the big "yeah!" difference there.
Maybe RL reviews will tell a different story, when it's released.
Upvote
0
I started shooting weddings the with original R6. Still do. Photo and video, although with video, I've had overheating issues.
Upvote
0
Sorry. But your sentence seems incomplete.
And I don't get your point, because of that.
I was never referring to the R3. I was talking about the R6 Mk III over the R6 Mk II.
R3 is a different tool, even if Mk III and R3 might be sharing the same sensor.
Therefore, I don't start comparing tools two times the price, just because the sensor is the same.
Upvote
0
Precisely. But I don't shoot any video and have rarely been let down by AF performance of the OG R6, and upgrading for that as the only improvement relevant to me does not seem worthwile.
I'll see what Canon has to offer as an alternative when my R6 dies in the hopefully distant future.
Upvote
0
My guess (and your guess is as good as mine) is that a R3II will be a 45mp R series that everyone (who will never buy one) has been yammering about since the 1's announcement. I think all we are seeing here is a re-alinging of products in the range / line up. The R1 is (and alwys will be) intended for Pro sports, so 24mp makes a LOT of sense for that use case scenario. In the past we had a the 1d and 1ds range.
I suspect that we will see the R3 to functionally migrate into the 1Ds slot. even if the R6III has the same sensor as the R3, the R3 is still a superior camera. The EVF, battery, buffer, layout and build quality are enough to seperate the R3 from the R6III in the hands of working professional photographers who place those things over pure resolution or feature down flow.
I can''t see anyone downgrading from a R3 to a R6iii, maybe adding a R6iii to their existing R3 as a backup / smaller option.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is also true of the 5DmkIII and 5Dmk4. Canon is having a hard job tempting those users to the R6/II/III cameras. Both of those DSLR's were massive sellers for Canon. There are moer of those two cameras in the hands of working professionals than al the other camera modeal and brands combined. Many upgraded from a pair of 5DII's to either a pair of 5DIII's or the 5D4 and operate a 6-8 year upgrade cycle.Canon made the original R6 too good of a camera for stills only shooters (unless you need high MP I guess). From what I have seen neither the R6II nor the rumored features of the R6III would tempt me to upgrade
Along comes the R6 (a great camera to boot) and it felt like a step backwards from the existing 5D4 users, even though the AF was superior and the real world resolution was similar. Many felt that the EVF technology was still too imature compared to a half descent optical vierw finder. I use a R6ii and a R8 and i often find the EVF in the R8 to be frustratingly low resolution and even the R6ii's EVF is still quite low.
For me, the biggest advantage a R6iii could offer me is the new "lock on to anytihng that's moving" AF track mode and a EVF upgrade to the same unit found in the R5. I'm really not fussed about the 40fps electronic mode 14bit raws and super fast readout speed. I'm finding the current 12fps is sufficient for my needs. Maybe 20 would be nice very occasionally.
I'm in a place next year to upgrade my R8 and I have to consider the amazing value that a R6ii currently offers vs what ever comes down the pipe from Canon in the R6 mark iii.
We are definately in the age of very minor ncremental upgrades between models. The big gains in tech have all been made, now it's about model refinement.
Upvote
0
Look at the graphs on https://www.photonstophotos.net/ and pay attention to the icon used for the newer EOS-R graphs that indicate when noise reduction is being used. TL;dr Canon's "RAW" files in EOS-R are now pre-baked.
Upvote
0
And Bill has admitted he doesn’t have objective criteria for that, the spectrum graph he uses to gauge it shows the same slope for the R5II and the Sony A1, but one gets the triangles and the other doesn’t.
So don’t try to hang a large statement on triangles being there, it might not hold up. All we know if that there’s a correlation between the pixels, not why it’s there or how it’s done. And the strength of the correlation isn’t shown, so from the triangle alone we can’t say if it’s well done, rare or still mooing when it comes to being cooked.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
As pointed out, that’s questionable. But are you suggesting that the questionable pre-cooking of RAW files has anything to do with the 'neural network noise reduction' mentioned in the feature list?
Or were you just responding to the thing I said wasn’t the subject of discussion and that I didn’t disagree with anyway?
Upvote
0
My sentence isn’t incomplete. My point stands even if you don’t want to evaluate it.
I will reiterate more verbosely: R6III (if specs described in this article turn out to be real) is essentially an R3 minus a grip. And actually adds some capabilities. If you think the R3 has anything to offer over the R6II besides the gripped body, the R6III has that too at a cheaper price.
Personally I look at what a Camera is capable of more than its price.
Upvote
0
Right, you'd like to inject some alternative facts that explain the sensor data that gets analysed, is that your position? If so, please expand to the same level of detail as photonstophotos about why you're right so that we can all critique your methods that disagree with an already publicly published method.
Upvote
0
1) I already acknowledged that there is cooking of RAW files, what part of that did you not understand?
2) Bill Claff himself, the person who generates the data for photonstophotos and makes the call about RAW cooking, says that the determination of whether or not it's happening is subjective (Specifically, he stated, "That said, deciding whether to label something as having been affected by Noise Reduction (NR) is not an exact science.").
3) I've already pointed out that this whole discussion is irrelevant to the topic at hand (namely, the 'neural network noise reduction' feature), so I'm not sure why you are perseverating on this, but if you want to embarrass yourself further, that's your choice.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
