And at low ISOs DR is better than the A9ii.

It's pretty crazy that this camera is better in many ways than the $4500 A9ii. And in all the others is very competitive.

What I'm trying to say is they have twice as many pixels, and that is a challenge.
It is great that they managed to close the DR and SNR gap with other sensors with lower pixel density.

I agree, R6 matches up very well with Sony's A9ii. I can't believe it though, the R6 is way crisper&cleaner than the A9ii in low and high ISOs, which has no AA filter and it's 24mp BSI sensor vs R6's 20mp old CMOS, bravo Canon! At $2500, the R6, has 1EV DR advantage(according to Bill Claff), 8 stops(vs 5.5) of stabilization, 100%(vs 93%) AF coverage that can focus down to -6.5EV(vs -3EV), 1053(vs 693) selectable AF pts, !2fps(vs 10fps) mechanical, R6 has 240 continuous raw buffer(vs 25 for A9ii), 4K @60fps(vs 4K@30fps). Then you have the RF's F2.8 Holiest Trinity, all lens are stabilized, unlike Sony. Seems like Canon made the A9ii their benchmark and decided to make a mockery of it, in which they succeeded(paper spec wise).

It depends on the focal length,. Sometimes it more stops some times it less.
What matters is Canon is very close to Olympus who has always been the best.

Sony is a distant last. Imagining Resource released a video today comparing Sony's best IBIS in the A6600. It is rather embarrassing how bad it does. Like I said it's a distant last. It is usually unusable for video.

So not only does Canon have near the best IBIS during video, DPRTV said they have the best focusing and tracking during video.

It depends on many things, technique also being a big one. Here the Sony beats the Olympus so results vary user to user.

This is a 42mp FF vs a 16mp MFT so this says alot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFItLcV6sqk

I use both the IBIS in the olympus EM5Mii and EM1markii as well as the Sony A7Rii A7Riii daily. From that first-hand experience I actually think the IBIS is quite good on Sony for stills, not up to Olympus, However on my Sony's I am stabilizing a FF 42mp sensor so given that consideration, it fairs very well indeed and I can get the quoted 5 stops routinely.

You obviously have limited experience with many cameras. Do you even have any first-hand experience with IBIS? you shoot an RP, arguably the worst mirrorless FF available, crappy sensor, no IBIS pretty standard features, so not really sure why you keep going on

Because it's shot on a expensive 50 f/1.2. All the Sony's are shot on the cheap 85 f/1.8

@Ethan
I think that the gentleman is talking about base iso stills. Video, high iso, DR are all significantly improved. However the next step in the 5D series is of course the R5 - which you will be able to check out in this scene probably toooooo soon for your liking 😊 .

@Snapper2013
Need an update to your name to Snapper2020 - no point in living in the past 😊

My name is fine, Your name, however is just dumb. LOL

Well, all reviews and all Fujifilm fans and web sites tell us how well it performs and is sharper than this or that FF sensor. I also own full frame and medium format digital and have for years. I know what is what. But even with an AA filter the lower MP R6 is far more detailed in all scenes.

all Fuji fans aren’t exactly trustworthy sources... no hate against fuji, but I‘ve never seen an aspc camera exceeding FF images.

I believe that we are on the same page. The page from my frame, however, has been totally perverted because of years with Fujifilm and its fans whose truth is stretched.

It’s worth noticing that RF 50L on the R6 is one of the sharpest on the market, while the xf56 on Fuji is probably not. If you switch to Canon ef camera like 5D3 or 6D2, the difference is smaller, especially at low iso

Well back to back with a 5D2, both noise and detail favour the canon by a large margin when shooting on the same novoflex focus rail and using equally sharp macro lenses used for either line scanners or duplicators. APSC is simply outclassed by just about any class or year of FF, as long as the megapixel count is in the ball park and the FF isn’t gimped.

noise is better than a73 and the z6 (especially above 6400).

The noise is extremely similar between the 3 pixel peeping at 6400-12800 RAW. Great!

@Richard A number of things. The plane of the test scene and the camera sensor should be perfectly parallel. They are not. The images should cover the full test scene. They dont. There should be no rotation of the camera between one camera and the next. But there is.

It is just like when you shot the test scene with the FUJIFILM GFX 100 and everybody was complaining that the resolution was not there because part of the image did not achieve critical focus (because it was not shot correctly).

I know that these images are very hard to shoot properly, but it is not impossible, and in the past, you used to do a much better job...

I would ask for a refund

Ultimately we do our best, I certainly didn't spend any less time of pay any less attention to this camera than I ever have.

You may feel Sony is superior while others will find Canon superior. . Consumer choice is much more complicated than a chart. If it was that simple everyone would be shooting the same camera model, but this isn’t that case is it ?

As someone who shoots for years professionaly I can tell that the Sonys are on paper and on technical terms indeed way better than current Canon models - especialy if you factor in the price. I do a lot of jobs with the A7R IV, 5D IV and 1DX II. The A7R IV is indeed technicaly the way better camera. The dynamic range is nothing but incredible and the resolution and AF system is impressive and especially for product shots a joy to have.
But on the other hand the 5D IV for example is a way better "rounded" camera. The colors, AWB and handling is just better. Menus are nicer, viewfinder (though optical) and display are nicer. The sony lags in the menu and when switching aperture/ISO, its just a more technical camera.
This is why I look forward to the R5 to replace my A7. I may loose a little bit of sharpness, but the colors and WB alone is probably worth it =)

You miss that the A7rIII handles like a Sony and the R6 like a Canon 5D, which is fun to use. Your racing tuned middle class car ain’t no Mercedes, even if it runs faster and is cheaper.

Doesn't the A7Riii have 42 megapixels? If so it will resolve much more detail. Not apples to apples to compare to the 20 megapixel R6. Wait for the R5 and compare again.

Poor colors, bad IBIS, slow performance, slow sensor readout, poor video,etc.
Its weird to see Sony fans say focus and tracking are important and then recommend a camera not as good as the R6.
The R6 has better focus tracking for video than any Sony according to DPRTV, and it has better focus and than the older generation Sony.

avidly lucid, but from a price standpoint, the A7RIII is closer to the R6.

canon colors, canon colors... I hear you, but don’t get it: I shoot raw for one thing. Second, I saw blind comparisons, and there was no clear winner, so it can just be brand loyalty. Also, colors are sometimes confused with WB.

Happy Dad, actually used an A7Riii? Even the 5yo ARii destroys the RP and the R in every way. It also bests the R6 for overall IQ. 2 A7Rii bodies for the same $ as the R6. Far better set up for primes lenses. The R6 is a great all-rounder. The A7Rii is just better for use cases where IQ is paramount.

The A7Rii as hi res stills camera, is the best value on the market. Especially given the use cases for such a camera, where FPS, and Video are not even a real consideration. IBIS is very usable for stills, aids hi-res capture, especially with good technique. The AF on the a7Rii is also great.

Colors are dependent on your understanding of PP. For anyone that understands processing and actually builds their own profiles, we get results that are going to be far superior to anything you get from Canon SOOC.

If stills is the primary concern, and it is in this segment. Given you actually know a thing or two about actual photography, Sony just offers the best bang for buck period.

Danart

I liked the way you proved the R6 was superior to the $4500 A9ii in DR.

That's the camera the R6 competes with and soundly beats.
Better DR, better IBIS, better video, better tracking during video (according to DPRTV), and so much more for almost $2000 less.
Plus all the best sports lenses on the planet work better on the R6.

Except you can't use the 20fps for sports with the R6. And that's the key point of the A9...

That's a very ignorant statement.
The Olys have the same sensor readout speed and have been used for sports for years. It's fast enough for running people, pets, and even birds in flight. You can't say all the people who shot those did not. There several site where they use the electronic shutter for BIF exclusively.

Also, the A9ii has many limitations too. For lossless raw files it's only shoots 12 FPS. Most Sony lenses also do not shoot 20 fps, for example the 70-200/4 limits FPS on the A9ii. And in some artificial lighting it's best to use the 10 FPS mechanical shutter.

So frequently there is no advantage there. But remember we are talking about a camera that costs almost $2000 less that soundly beats the A9ii in many ways.

I love it when trolls argue that what what people do everyday is impossible. It proves you are a troll with no credibility.
The photographer who shot my son's baseball game 3 years ago used an Oly with an electronic shutter and the photos were amazing.
So I don't believe your lies

And let's not forget in many many situations the A9II can't shoot 20 fps.
The R6 is superior the A9II is many ways and it costs almost $2000 less.

I bet you are one of those trolls who won't admit IBIS and video are vastly better.

He bragged 18FPS.

An example of the Oly Electronic shutter for action:
"One extremely useful feature for bird photography is the Pro Capture Mode in which the camera starts recording images to the temporary storage when you half press the shutter button. The images are stored in full RAW at 60 frames per second thanks to the electronic shutter. For example, while waiting for the bird to take flight, it is always difficult to predict the exact moment of launch. Once the bird takes flight and as you press the shutter button, the camera will record the current shot and the previous shots (up to 35 frames before capture) and save them to the memory card. This means that even if you are half a second late in pressing the shutter button, you will be able to capture the “action” "

Wait a few months. 6D2 was $2000 at release.

How about $2300 and a free printer?

@NicoPPC: I agree, and the difference would have been greater if Capture One was the RAW software used.

There is truth to that (not a lot of difference between 20mp and 24mp) but, where do you draw the line? There isn't a lot of difference between say 20mp and 18mp, but how would you feel if the R6 was 18mp? Can get tricky.

@bluevellet

//But the biggest difference is the Canon RF 50 f1.2, it looks better than all the other lenses on the competing systems used in this test.//

The 90mm APO-Sumicron looks to have the highest contrast and resolving power. And has zero fringing in the corners, as you would expect from an apochromat that costs four grand..

The Canon has maybe a tad more contrast than the Nikon 50S, but the Nikon has better control of CA and more resolution. The Sony lens is the worst but costs only 600 quid.

The Sony's are shot on the cheap 85 f/1.8.

It's aliasing. A spacial frequency that appears on top of an analog signal when you sample it at a too low frequency. In photography, the sampling frequency is the pixel pitch in the image plane. With a good anti aliasing filter, like on a 1DX or a D5 for instance, these artisfacts won't show because the AA filter is calibrated so it doesn't allow the camera to "see" frequencies it can't read accurately. It's the equivalent of a low pass filter when you're analysing an electric signal.

Only aliasing again. Take the same picture with the camera lilted at 45 degrees and you will see all those lines flip fron one direction to another one.

That's what aliasing refers to: a false (low) frequency pattern appearing as an alias for the real, high-frequency pattern that can't be correctly represented.

Or does it show that the 1D X III's expensive AA filter is doing a better job of suppressing aliasing by not trying to falsely convey frequencies the camera can't accurately represent?

@ Richard Butler
Or is it the lesser lens that acts as an extra AA filter?
R6 also has an AA filter but a better lens, which shows.

There are some things you can be certain of: the prominent moiré in the R6 images tell you that the RF 50mm is very sharp and that the R6's AA filter is very weak.

However, because both the lens and AA filter on the 1D X III are different, you can't be sure how much of a role either is playing in its images having less moiré and lower apparent sharpness.

Or, at least, not by just comparing those cameras.

If you looked at that same lens on a more demanding sensor with minimal AA filter, you could check whether it's able to resolve higher frequencies.

No. We try to avoid using exotica for the studio scene and we try to avoid chopping and changing as much as possible, to maximise comparability between cameras.

Given the 85mm F1.8 did a very good job on the EOS 5DS R, there's no reason to think it'll hold back a 20MP camera.

“Real innovation”, like 8 stops of stabilization, and the ability to focus at -6.5 EV when you get there!

I don't care if it has 20 stops of stabilization. IBIS doesn't freeze action, so you'll still need to use a high shutter speed for that.

Final output on my D850 will be sharper than this because it has more MPs, and before you say it's noisier.....only at the pixel level. I have the option to downsize and apply more NR because I have gobs of resolution.

"like 8 stops of stabilization".
Not with all lenses.

https://breakfastographer.wordpress.com/2020/07/10/how-canon-r5-r6-ibis-performs/

@Archy... Interesting chart! I’ll bottom-line it for you: It shows that when mounted on an R5 or R6, that 11 of the 13 RF lenses listed provides BETTER IMAGE STABILIZATION than ANY other manufacturer of ANY FF camera, with ANY LENS, period, FULL STOP!

Let's wait for real world 3rd party tests.

DPR Staff, I have a long post hanging in another Safari tab that won’t post. It claims the post contains a swear word. It does not. Would you please look at it and fix the problem? Thanks

Totally agree. The only reason I upgraded from a 6D to an a7iii (I would have gone for the R6 if it was around back then. No, the R wasn't good for me) was for much better AF consistency, a slightly more compact design (helps for carrying discreetly), and AF consistency ;) . The whole "sony sucks in the hands" thing was fixed with a cheap pinky grip/tripod plate.

Everyone will have different requirements for what fits them for ergo. Some will prefer the massive Panasonic cameras, others will prefer the tiny MFT or Fuji options, others will prefer the big, round grips of the Canons or Nikons. It's great to have so many options in such a packed segment.

What is "per-pixel" quality?

How will this Canon focus with the new F11 lenses...haha thought so, maybe +6ev?

As well as your wrist rotates

@ Steel... Why are you keeping this info from us? Please release the full spreadsheet with the results of your exhaustive testing about this camera and lens combo! You are not still under an NDA about these cameras are you?

@zv The S1 autofocuses down to -6ev, one of the few advantages of their autofocus system.

What lens does the S1 focus to -6, Canon demands a 1.2 lens for its claimed performance?

@LC, How is -6EV an advantage compared to -6.5EV on the R6?

@Steeel, should you suddenly be overcome by a desire for some factual information, head over to https://youtu.be/fYuOUmhKbzY concerning f11 lenses!

So you agree, it can never be as sharp as the S1. . .