I have read that, and it seemed to be the case except...in a recent discussion of AF points/areas I noted that the 1D X III has 3,869 selectable AF points for stills in Live View, while the R6 has 6072 selectable AF points for stills. So...is it the same sensor? I'm no longer certain.
I wasn't actually gonna reply to his post, but good thing this is the world wide web, and we all have access to the information.
That's true, the R5II has 14-bit ES mode, however the original R5 with 12-bit ES still does better than the R6 in ES:
How have you measured those two stops? It's technically impossible. The ES can be in theory up to 2 stops worse than EFCS at ISO 100 - in practice is a bit less than that due to misc. reasons. But at high ISOs the difference becomes less because of how amplification works - there's simply no information to fill 12 bits per pixel with required granularity, so 12 or 14 makes very little difference.
DxOMark don't even measure in ES mode as far as I can tell.
I never found that to be true in any mode whatsoever. I've shot the R5 many times and I always found the files to be very similar, but slightly inferior to those of the R6.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that I measured two extra stops of DR, I can't measure that, you're right.
Exactly the same conclusion here: The sum of single specs and ergonomics is good, but the system as a whole is excellent! Including the sheer image quality which is superb. 24 million pixels which have excellent single pixel quality!
As long as you're already shooting raw, what prevents you from cropping in post? Also, there's already 1.6 crop mode in the R5 and R5II.
That would have been a 2-stop difference from your description, but it doesn't match my observations. Tbh I'm too lazy to shoot the tests myself but again you can find samples for the R6 (ES and EFCS) on DPR.
I love the smell of confirmation bias in the morning. No, actually I prefer coffee but this morning I have both.
I doubt it will
Glad to fill your day with joy, sir! But we're past lunch here already
Yeah, like I said, I don't think the difference reaches 2 stops, but it's close.
I know, I understand that.
+2. On other platforms I've been insisting "worse than competition" in test charts doesn't mean the camera is bad, it's still more capable than you can handle. But spec warriors will just label me as xxx-fanboy because I "defend" a product.
Real word usage experience is good until you claim that "there's a two stop difference between ES and EFCS at ISO 1600". Then you have to tell us how exactly those two stops were measured.
There's electronic shutter working in all shutter modes, including full mechanical. It's always 'electronic' because readout goes sequentially row by row (or by small groups of rows). In the pure electronic mode without the mechanical curtains the readout speed may be increased which may result in an increased read noise. However, the major contributor is the reduced bit depth.
Those tests are typically done not in the field but in a controlled environment, because you need to capture the same scene with the same illumination, using the same angle of view, preferably the same lens and exact same exposure settings. That's required to eliminate or reduce the contribution of unknown variables on your measurement.
And I still only know a lot of people who actually don´t watch movies in 4k... and its 2024...
