Rumored R6 Mark III Specifications

#61
SvO2 said:
My sentence isn’t incomplete. My point stands even if you don’t want to evaluate it.
Click to expand...
I didn‘t want to offend you.
I simply asked to understand you.

If you don‘t want to explain to me what you meant, I just can‘t evaluate anything.

If this is your style of (NOT) argumenting I see no reason to evaluate anything.

Better think about good manners. Thank you.

SvO2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You speak of R6m3 and R6m2 at the same time.
Maybe I am too tired But I don‘t get your point.
R3 might not offer enough to you.
That‘s fine. Go, get an R6… whatever Mark you prefer.
I‘m fine with my R6m2 and never thought about an R3.
Or arguing pro R3.
It seems you got my initial post wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#62
Maximilian said:
You speak of R6m3 and R6m2 at the same time.
Maybe I am too tired But I don‘t get your point.
R3 might not offer enough to you.
That‘s fine. Go, get an R6… whatever Mark you prefer.
I‘m fine with my R6m2 and never thought about an R3.
Or arguing pro R3.
It seems you got my initial post wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't know how else to say it. This R6M3 is essentially an improved R3 stuffed into a prosumer body. Same sensor. Improved processing. It offers more over the R6M2 than the R3 itself does with exception of the built in grip.

If you don't feel it offers anything worthwhile, that's fine. But Canon seemed to feel that a camera with those capabilities offered enough over the R6M2 to justify charging more than double the price. So from that perspective the R6M3 is quite the value over the R6M2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#64
neuroanatomist said:
The R6 had the same sensor as the 1D X III.
Click to expand...
I am aware. It did also have a 16fps mechanical shutter instead of 12fps. And some people for whatever reason still preferred an optical viewfinder. R3 has none of those advantages over this possible R6M3. And if the R6M3 adds pre-capture (which it seems like is likely), that would actually be a major reason to go with the R6M3 (or two of them) over the R3 even if you are a professional sports shooter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#65
SvO2 said:
I don't know how else to say it. This R6M3 is essentially an improved R3 stuffed into a prosumer body. Same sensor. Improved processing. It offers more over the R6M2 than the R3 itself does with exception of the built in grip.

If you don't feel it offers anything worthwhile, that's fine. But Canon seemed to feel that a camera with those capabilities offered enough over the R6M2 to justify charging more than double the price. So from that perspective the R6M3 is quite the value over the R6M2.
Click to expand...
I don't know how else to say it, too.

It was only you talking about an R3.
I was comparing R6 vs. R6m2 vs. R6m3.

R3 is, was and will not be part of my argumentation in this thread.

I don‘t get why you want me to get into that R3 argumentation.
Are you trying to troll me?
Or are you unable to read and understand my posts?
 
Upvote 0
#66
SvO2 said:
R3 has none of those advantages over this possible R6M3. And if the R6M3 adds pre-capture (which it seems like is likely), that would actually be a major reason to go with the R6M3 (or two of them) over the R3 even if you are a professional sports shooter.
Click to expand...
Wait. Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that a camera released four years later will have technological advantages, even if it uses the same sensor? Hold on. Let me process that. It's so incredibly, earth-shatteringly shocking. Technological advancement. In just four years. Why, that's just frickin' amazing! Who could possibly have imagined it?

MindBlown.gif

[/sarcasm]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#67
neuroanatomist said:
Wait. Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that a camera released four years later will have technological advantages, even if it uses the same sensor? Hold on. Let me process that. It's so incredibly, earth-shatteringly shocking. Technological advancement. In just four years. Why, that's just frickin' amazing! Who could possibly have imagined it?

View attachment 220443

[/sarcasm]
Click to expand...
I agree it's not a big surprise. But there is a contingent that seems to feel pro body always equals better for pro use regardless of what the actual camera's capabilities are.


Maximilian said:
I don't know how else to say it, too.

It was only you talking about an R3.
I was comparing R6 vs. R6m2 vs. R6m3.

R3 is, was and will not be part of my argumentation in this thread.

I don‘t get why you want me to get into that R3 argumentation.
Are you trying to troll me?
Or are you unable to read and understand my posts?
Click to expand...
My entire point is if you want to understand the capabilities of the R6M3, you have to look no further than the R3. They have the same capabilities. One cannot rationally claim the R6M3 has very little to offer over the R6M2 while simultaneously believing the R3 is a more capable camera than the R6M2. I simply don't understand how you're not understanding that - to the point I think you must be the one trolling and being dense on purpose.
 
Upvote 0
#68
SvO2 said:
My entire point is if you want to understand the capabilities of the R6M3, you have to look no further than the R3. They have the same capabilities. One cannot rationally claim the R6M3 has very little to offer over the R6M2 while simultaneously believing the R3 is a more capable camera than the R6M2. I simply don't understand how you're not understanding that - to the point I think you must be the one trolling and being dense on purpose.
Click to expand...
Now I see, why we were misunderstanding each other. And believe me, I am (want to be) the last one trying to troll any.
And if you felt like this, I hereby apologise for something I didn't see.

My point of view was, that if you look at the R3 just from sensor and AF performance yet the R6m2 was already close to the R3.
The R3 has other things to offer that you and I seem to not care about or are not willing to pay for (pro rugged housing and interfaces, built in grip, eye AF, etc.).
Honestly, I never realized the need of a stacked sensor since the time I was shooting with the R6m2.
In some parameters and measurements, the R3 sensor was even falling behind the one of the R6m2.
And with just the exchange of the sensor, there was not much gained for me with the R6m3.
Okay, there could be the AF Accelerator. Maybe this could be something for me.
But TBH I am not sure, if Canon will give such a feature so fast to a camera not being top line.
Well see.

Hopefully, you can agree with these arguments and we are settled.
 
Upvote 0
#69
bergstrom said:
Will the R5ii's bad DR trickle down to the R6iii as well?
Click to expand...

"Bad DR"? I find editing images on the R5ii much easier and better than the R5 or R6ii. Whatever they're doing, Canon has made the images much easier to work with. It's easier to raise shadows without weird effects. It's easier to keep a beautiful sky while editing the rest. I haven't really changed my editing techniques but people have noticed my images seem to have more clarity and a realistic pop to them than before and I never told them that my camera had changed (still love my R5 though).
 
Upvote 0
#70
frankchn said:
If this rumor is completely true, then the sensor is the same as the R3's sensor, so the DR performance should be very similar to the R3, which is basically indistinguishable from the R6 Mark II.
Click to expand...
At which point people will say, they're disappointed because the new camera didn't improve at all.

I just hope anyone at canon actually doesn't look into anything camera related on the internet, because we'd probably be directly responsible for a lot of therapysessions.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#72
SvO2 said:
R6 body with the R3 sensor always made some sense to me for the next R6 iteration. Parts already exist, minimal R&D required, and allows Canon to stay at the top end of what is shaping to be one of the more competitive market segments these days.

A question remains where would an R3II fit in between this and the R1. Personally I think either the R3 line will be discontinued or the R3II will target a different niche. The people who are willing to spend twice the money to gain a grip are probably also the types who’d just spend the extra thousand bucks and get an R1 at that point.
Click to expand...

If this turns out realistic and they keep R3 it is logical to assume superior features of R3 sucessor, not just the grip.
 
Upvote 0
#73
GMCPhotographics said:
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.
Click to expand...
With the 5Diii released in 2012 and 5Div in 20216 (both @ USD3500), then moving to the R5 at its current pricing should be a no-brainer. The R5ii is even better at a higher pricepoint.
There really is no reasonable reason not to upgrade now unless budget is severely limited. If their 12 year old 5Diii is still going @~USD300/year cost then it has been remarkable value. Hopefully the R5 will have as long a life span... 4.5 years and still going strong for me but I am not using it everyday.

GMCPhotographics said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that the recent DPR articles on "best camera" for ~$2k and above $2.5k makes this point clearly. They can review based on current features and price point but at the end of the day, people are most likely to stay within the ecosystem that their lenses are to save money. Some will have multiple systems if they can justify specific use cases... or perhaps have sufficient disposable income to have the best for them.

That said, moving from DLSR to mirrorless today is a massive jump. From 5Diii (or 5Div) to R5/R5ii is a revolutionary step for speed, resolution, AF tracking, video, size, weight etc.
The only downside is OVF (and R5/R5ii's EVF still has some advantages) and battery life.
 
Upvote 0
#74
koenkooi said:
For the R5II and R1, you can only run the AI denoise on JPEGs, not on RAW files. Canon marketing people said that’s because running it on RAWs ‘would take too long’.

Like the blur detector and other features: JPEG only.
Click to expand...
I couldn't care less!
As long as there is Topaz AI...
I have never tested the R5 II's in camera denoise, shooting exclusively raw, but cannot imagine it to perform better than Topaz.
After this free advertisement, let's turn back to the subject... :p
 
Upvote 0
#75
I once again checked my habits, and noticed that I very often took a look at the top LCD...Maybe I wouldn't need it so often if I shot AV or TV instead of manual. The "only" 24 MP wouldn't bother me at all, since I never had to complain about the sharpness of 5D IV pictures.
Yet, no turning back for me, though the R6 II is already a very nice camera, and the R6 III will even be better.
But: The R5 II is :love:and its eye-control AF simply great!
 
Upvote 0
#76
neuroanatomist said:
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.").
Click to expand...

That's not the same as how people here are portraying what he said.
 
Upvote 0
#77
David_B said:
That's not the same as how people here are portraying what he said.
Click to expand...
Worth noting that he also states, "Noise reduction, hot pixel suppression, and other signal processing share the same general characteristic.
They all re-compute a pixel value based on neighboring pixels." So do the triangles on his plots mean NR on the RAW image, or are they the result of hot pixel suppression or 'other processing'?

As @koenkooi pointed out, Claff's spectra for the R5II and A1 are very similar, yet one gets triangles and the other gets circles. That's typical for a subjective determination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#80
GMCPhotographics said:
Canon is having a hard job tempting [5DmkIII and 5Dmk4] users to the R6/II/III cameras.
Click to expand...

GMCPhotographics said:
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.
Click to expand...

GMCPhotographics said:
Many felt that the EVF technology was still too imature compared to a half descent optical vierw finder.
Click to expand...
Not trying to pick a fight, but do you have any evidence to back up these assertions? Sounds a lot like generalising your own views to "many".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Early Canon EOS R6 Mark III Specifications
Replies
223
Views
30K
Umbral
U
Canon Rumors
The likelihood of a Canon EOS R6 Mark III this year is near zero
Replies
111
Views
8K
bergstrom
B
Canon Rumors
Canon EOS R6 Mark III prototypes are in the wild
Replies
87
Views
11K
Lifeprod
L
Canon Rumors
The Canon EOS R6 Mark III is “definitely” coming in Q1 of 2025
Replies
160
Views
13K
Traveler
T
Canon Rumors
We keep hearing about the Canon EOS R6 Mark III coming in 2024
Replies
89
Views
8K
Deleted member 7828
D
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu