The Canon EOS R6 Mark III is “definitely” coming in Q1 of 2025

#81
Toni said:
I don't understand the people that think that 24 MP it's enough, probably because they have heard it a lot of times.
Technology evolves. First film, now digital. 24 MP it's enought FOREVER? It doesn't make sense.
For most people, 50MP is more useful than 120fps. Just ask anyone with a Canon 5Ds.
Click to expand...
My R8 is mainly used for family pictures, for which 24MP is "good enough". For macro and wildlife I'll my R5II and I wouldn't mind having 80MP for that use case.
For the family pictures we print and hang on the wall, I can't see a difference in resolution between the 12MP phone shots and the 18/24/32/45MP MILC shots. So for me, 24MP is 'good enough', but I wouldn't be against a higher resolution sensor. If Canon announced a new compact body tomorrow, the resolution wouldn't factor into the decision to buy it or not.

I don't think 24MP is the perfect resolution and that people shouldn't be 'allowed' to wish for more pixels, it just is "good enough" for me, for my current use case. I still use a 32MP M6II for family pics as well :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#82
koenkooi said:
My R8 is mainly used for family pictures, for which 24MP is "good enough". For macro and wildlife I'll my R5II and I wouldn't mind having 80MP for that use case.
For the family pictures we print and hang on the wall, I can't see a difference in resolution between the 12MP phone shots and the 18/24/32/45MP MILC shots. So for me, 24MP is 'good enough', but I wouldn't be against a higher resolution sensor. If Canon announced a new compact body tomorrow, the resolution wouldn't factor into the decision to buy it or not.

I don't think 24MP is the perfect resolution and that people shouldn't be 'allowed' to wish for more pixels, it just is "good enough" for me, for my current use case. I still use a 32MP M6II for family pics as well :)
Click to expand...
That's the point... 24 or even 32 MP on an aps-c sensor... And still 24 MP on a full-frame sensor using perhaps a weight lens (in my case 24-70 F2.8 that weighs 900 gr). It is absolutely ridiculous.
Some people said: it's enough (so, why does exist 50 MP full-frame cameras?)
Some people said: it's about image quality (what? so 50 MP full-frame more expensive cameras are worse?)
My point is that it doesn't make sense an aps-c 24-32 MP camera, and then with a full-frame camera (perhaps with a more weight lens) the same MP count. Why are you carrying the extra weight?
 
Upvote 0
#83
Toni said:
I don't understand the people that think that 24 MP it's enough, probably because they have heard it a lot of times.
Technology evolves. First film, now digital. 24 MP it's enought FOREVER? It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
I know what I need. You don’t. Nor do I know what you need. Choice is good. If you don’t understand, that’s ok.

Personally, if I needed high MP then I wouldn’t waste my time with any FF model, I’d shoot with a Fuji GFX (that over Phase One for the lens selection out to 500mm).

Toni said:
For most people, 50MP is more useful than 120fps. Just ask anyone with a Canon 5Ds.
Click to expand...
So you think most DSLR users shot with a 5Ds? Lol. For most people, 24 MP is enough. Just ask anyone with an R8, R6II, R3 or R1.

Toni said:
And an inbody flash shouldn't be a bad idea (like Canon Rebel line). It's useful fora 2-3 people photo at night, without the need to carry with an external flash.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why anyone would use an onboard flash. The power is not sufficient and the quality of light so close to the axis is terrible. If you want a pic like that at night, use your phone and you’ll get better results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#84
neuroanatomist said:
So you think most DSLR users shot with a 5Ds? Lol. For most people, 24 MP is enough. Just ask anyone with an R8, R6II, R3 or R1.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's just so enough that R1 has software upscaling... Instead of having real pixels, it's scaled by software. Amazing.
neuroanatomist said:
I don’t understand why anyone would use an onboard flash. The power is not sufficient and the quality of light so close to the axis is terrible. If you want a pic like that at night, use your phone and you’ll get better results.
Click to expand...
I have been using for years a Canon 600d with it's built in flash for family photos, and they are a lot better than phone photos.
And I think it also really makes sense on first level full-frame camera like Canon R8. It's one thing to carry the camera and lens, but if you also have to carry an external flash, it's a hassle.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#85
Toni said:
Yes, it's just so enough that R1 has software upscaling... Instead of having real pixels, it's scaled by software. Amazing.
Click to expand...
And the R5 has pixel shift for a 192 MP image…because 45 MP of real pixels is inadequate. Your logic is asinine.

Toni said:
I have been using for years a Canon 600d with its built in flash for family photos, and they are a lot better than phone photos.
And I think it also really makes sense on first level full-frame camera like Canon R8.
Click to expand...
Good for you. Some people love the red-eye, deer-in-headlights look of those shots. I have a little 270EX II that I can bring if I need a flash in that scenario, more power and the ability to bounce it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#86
Toni said:
Yes, it's just so enough that R1 has software upscaling... Instead of having real pixels, it's scaled by software. Amazing.

I have been using for years a Canon 600d with it's built in flash for family photos, and they are a lot better than phone photos.
And I think it also really makes sense on first level full-frame camera like Canon R8. It's one thing to carry the camera and lens, but if you also have to carry an external flash, it's a hassle.
Click to expand...
Just because you've been using a 600D with a built-in flash, every R8 customer should also get such a fragile and crappy accessory ?
Could you imagine for an instant that, for many of us, this would the reason not to buy the R8 II?
 
Upvote 0
#87
neuroanatomist said:
And the R5 has pixel shift for a 192 MP image…because 45 MP of real pixels is inadequate. Your logic is asinine.
Click to expand...
One thing is pixel shift, and another is software upscaling. I see that you confuse the concepts.
neuroanatomist said:
Good for you. Some people love the red-eye, deer-in-headlights look of those shots. I have a little 270EX II that I can bring if I need a flash in that scenario, more power and the ability to bounce it.
Click to expand...
In that case, you can correct red-eye when importing RAW image, only one click.
And you can bounce it only if there is some wall where to bounce it...
 
Upvote 0
#88
Del Paso said:
Just because you've been using a 600D with a built-in flash, every R8 customer should also get such a fragile and crappy accessory ?
Could you imagine for an instant that, for many of us, this would the reason not to buy the R8 II?
Click to expand...
Fragile? I have been using it on 600D and never failed neither broken... Don't use it, if you don't want.

I can suppose that Canon doesn't include it because some customers aren't able to disable/enable it.
 
Upvote 0
#89
Wro
Toni said:
Fragile? I have been using it on 600D and never failed neither broken... Don't use it, if you don't want.

I can suppose that Canon doesn't include it because some customers aren't able to disable/enable it.
Click to expand...
Wrong, because many don't want this fragile crappy flash on their camera.
And red rabbit eyes aren't very popular among family members...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#90
Toni said:
One thing is pixel shift, and another is software upscaling. I see that you confuse the concepts.
Click to expand...
Lol, no. I first used pixel shift over 20 years ago.

I see you have difficulty with abstraction of concepts. In fact, software upscaling is far more useful than pixel shift though a computer will yield better results than in-camera processing. Gigapixel AI is included in the Topaz Photo AI package. I think I used it once, just for kicks not for the output. As I said, I know my needs.

Toni said:
In that case, you can correct red-eye when importing RAW image, only one click.
And you can bounce it only if there is some wall where to bounce it...
Click to expand...
Quality of light is important to me. If I need to shoot outdoors at night, I bring a 600/EL-5 sized flash and a small (25x25cm) softbox that mounts on it in the hotshoe. As I said, the popup flash is crap.

Regardless, I can only have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent for so long before it becomes tedious. I’m at that point. Good luck with your photography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#92
Toni said:
So why Canon R5 have 45 MP, or Sony R series have 60 MP? Are they crazy?
Click to expand...
I believe both @neuro & @Bob Howland were refering to your point about 24mp being 'ridiculous' by essentially stating that it is not. In fact, certain genre of professional photographers (including wildlife, sports and wedding) seem rather happy with 24mp, as 24mp is enough for the work they do. Reference to 45M and 60M cameras is a separate point. All the major brands have a mixture of 'low' and 'high' mp cameras to serve different groups of people. In fact, it would be 'crazy' for them not to. For instance, I predominantly reach for the R8 plus two f4 zooms when I travel to keep the total weight low, and use the higher mp camera with the 100-500 for a spot of wildlife shooting when not travelling. If all the camera brands only produce FF cameras with at least 45mp, I would actually be most unhappy as it means cutting down to 1 travel lens. Besides, I don't really need 45mp or higher for most of what I do, and editing high mp images is a pain above about a thousand images. I want to enjoy my editing experience with a glass of wine and background music, not stare at the screen to wait for the computer to process the changes (yes, I don't want to spend too much on a computer, limiting it to entry level gaming ones). Overall, I like to have choices for doing different things. And 24mpx is plenty for me most of the time, although I really like 30mpx (for my own quirky reason).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#94
neuroanatomist said:
Lol, no. I first used pixel shift over 20 years ago.

I see you have difficulty with abstraction of concepts. In fact, software upscaling is far more useful than pixel shift though a computer will yield better results than in-camera processing. Gigapixel AI is included in the Topaz Photo AI package. I think I used it once, just for kicks not for the output. As I said, I know my needs.
Click to expand...
You continue going round in circles without understanding the concept: Why upscaling when the way should be to have more MP on camera?
neuroanatomist said:
Regardless, I can only have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent for so long before it becomes tedious. I’m at that point. Good luck with your photography.
Click to expand...
I'll try that.
 
Upvote 0
#95
HMC11 said:
I believe both @neuro & @Bob Howland were refering to your point about 24mp being 'ridiculous' by essentially stating that it is not. In fact, certain genre of professional photographers (including wildlife, sports and wedding) seem rather happy with 24mp, as 24mp is enough for the work they do. Reference to 45M and 60M cameras is a separate point. All the major brands have a mixture of 'low' and 'high' mp cameras to serve different groups of people. In fact, it would be 'crazy' for them not to. For instance, I predominantly reach for the R8 plus two f4 zooms when I travel to keep the total weight low, and use the higher mp camera with the 100-500 for a spot of wildlife shooting when not travelling. If all the camera brands only produce FF cameras with at least 45mp, I would actually be most unhappy as it means cutting down to 1 travel lens. Besides, I don't really need 45mp or higher for most of what I do, and editing high mp images is a pain above about a thousand images. I want to enjoy my editing experience with a glass of wine and background music, not stare at the screen to wait for the computer to process the changes (yes, I don't want to spend too much on a computer, limiting it to entry level gaming ones). Overall, I like to have choices for doing different things. And 24mpx is plenty for me most of the time, although I really like 30mpx (for my own quirky reason).
Click to expand...
The point that I was talking about was that I think it's ridiculous to generalize that 24 MP is enough for everyone who uses full-frame. And in particular I think it would be more useful to increase the minimum MP on full-frame cameras. In any case, I'm clear that it's just a matter of time. At some point 4 MP should be enough, then 8, then 16, now 24, and at some point they will have to increase it.
The fact is that carrying a heavy zoom lens (24-70 F2.8), for only 24 MP, really doesn't make much sense. In fact, it's like carrying a Hasselblad for 24 MP. No sense.
 
Upvote 0
#96
HMC11 said:
I believe both @neuro & @Bob Howland were refering to your point about 24mp being 'ridiculous' by essentially stating that it is not. In fact, certain genre of professional photographers (including wildlife, sports and wedding) seem rather happy with 24mp, as 24mp is enough for the work they do. Reference to 45M and 60M cameras is a separate point. All the major brands have a mixture of 'low' and 'high' mp cameras to serve different groups of people. In fact, it would be 'crazy' for them not to. For instance, I predominantly reach for the R8 plus two f4 zooms when I travel to keep the total weight low, and use the higher mp camera with the 100-500 for a spot of wildlife shooting when not travelling. If all the camera brands only produce FF cameras with at least 45mp, I would actually be most unhappy as it means cutting down to 1 travel lens. Besides, I don't really need 45mp or higher for most of what I do, and editing high mp images is a pain above about a thousand images. I want to enjoy my editing experience with a glass of wine and background music, not stare at the screen to wait for the computer to process the changes (yes, I don't want to spend too much on a computer, limiting it to entry level gaming ones). Overall, I like to have choices for doing different things. And 24mpx is plenty for me most of the time, although I really like 30mpx (for my own quirky reason).
Click to expand...
You can explain reality to a bowling ball, but you can’t make it understand.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#98
EOS 4 Life said:
I am not sure what you mean by this.
8K 60 RAW LT does require CF Express.
It takes up more bandwidth than 4K 120 RAW would.
Click to expand...
My reference to 8k60 is that it is only offered in raw light on the R5ii and not raw as far as I know. I haven't checked the R5c for 8k60 raw v raw light.
CFe B cards could certainly handle the bandwidth of 8k60 raw but I fear that heat is a major problem if that is the case.
 
Upvote 0
#99
koenkooi said:
My R8 is mainly used for family pictures, for which 24MP is "good enough". For macro and wildlife I'll my R5II and I wouldn't mind having 80MP for that use case.
For the family pictures we print and hang on the wall, I can't see a difference in resolution between the 12MP phone shots and the 18/24/32/45MP MILC shots. So for me, 24MP is 'good enough', but I wouldn't be against a higher resolution sensor. If Canon announced a new compact body tomorrow, the resolution wouldn't factor into the decision to buy it or not.

I don't think 24MP is the perfect resolution and that people shouldn't be 'allowed' to wish for more pixels, it just is "good enough" for me, for my current use case. I still use a 32MP M6II for family pics as well :)
Click to expand...
Agreed. 24mp is an overkill for general use cases. I have not ever shared a multi-megabyte family shot with them for instance. They are happy with <500kb shot for social media. If they want to print (highly unlikely) then I have a higher resolution shot to work with.
45mp on the R5 is great for me where I can do severe cropping for underwater shots where I can't change lenses or for indoor sports where fast moving action can mean a lot of cropping for composition.

Chasing increasing megapixels isn't a slam dunk improvement as the effective resolving power of the R6's 24mp vs R's 30mp shows.
From a work flow perspective, bigger files just mean slower processing from start to finish ie costs more for PCs/storage etc to work with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#100
Toni said:
Fragile? I have been using it on 600D and never failed neither broken... Don't use it, if you don't want.
I can suppose that Canon doesn't include it because some customers aren't able to disable/enable it.
Click to expand...
I believe that cost is the primary reason, usefulness is another and volume taken up in a body.
When you had a pentaprism then the flash could fit around it... not so much now.

The limited range/power doesn't help that much and the much higher quality ISO in current mirrorless bodies makes it somewhat obsolete.
Change the mode from green to P or other modes and the flash is disabled by pushing it down. Not all know this though.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon EOS R6 Mark III prototypes are in the wild
Replies
87
Views
11K
Lifeprod
L
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
We keep hearing about the Canon EOS R6 Mark III coming in 2024
Replies
89
Views
8K
Deleted member 7828
D
Canon Rumors
Three new segments of EOS R cameras coming in 2025
Replies
247
Views
18K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu