What if the RP 26mp sensor IS or ISN'T the same as as 6DII ?

Kent Ekasak said:

I am a non-Canon shooter, interested in RP and don't have 6D2, but read some reviews say that the sensor performance (DR ISO) is on par or even worse than new Canon's APSC (like M50).. If I look at other reviewers, who even test different camera sensor format and conclude that DR of Canon M50 is even worse than m43's newer 20mp sensor (G9), and worse than Sony's APSC (A6500).. Does anyone find the same conclusion?

I really looking for camera which give me somewhat clean images at ISO 10,000.. Is that possible with 6D2 sensor?…

Thank you in advance for your advise..

Click to expand...

Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Kent Ekasak said:

I am a non-Canon shooter, interested in RP and don't have 6D2, but read some reviews say that the sensor performance (DR ISO) is on par or even worse than new Canon's APSC (like M50).. If I look at other reviewers, who even test different camera sensor format and conclude that DR of Canon M50 is even worse than m43's newer 20mp sensor (G9), and worse than Sony's APSC (A6500).. Does anyone find the same conclusion?

I really looking for camera which give me somewhat clean images at ISO 10,000.. Is that possible with 6D2 sensor?…

Thank you in advance for your advise..

Click to expand...

The M50/80D are only slightly ahead at 100 ISO when pushed +3/4 stops. Every other IQ parameter: the 6DII is FF, better. Better resolution better noise performance shallower DOF etc,

And yes the 6DII sensor at high ISO in no worse than 5DIV/R/Z7/7III or anything really. Just DR (and mostly at base ISO).

Don't take anybody's word for it, look at DPR test scene comparisons and download the sample RAW images in the real-world sample gallery. Also look at Flickr's 6DII group.

Click to expand...

JPAlbert said:

My totally-off-the-wall guess is that the RP sensor -- even though the pixel count is the same as the 6Dii sensor -- is going to be at least "slightly different and improved".

Not sure exactly -what- will be different yet, but that's my prediction and I'm stickin' to it!

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

Lawn Lends said:

Great Bustard said:

To put it simply, if you can say that the 6D2 sensor is "good enough", then you can also say an APS-C sensor is "good enough". There's a reason to choose FF over APS-C, and there's a reason to want a better sensor than what's in the 6D2, especially given that the 6D2 sensor is the lowest performing sensor of all current FF sensors.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my thoughts on the 6D2. APS-C tech advanced after the 6D came out, but the FF tech didn't seem to advance that much between the 6D and the 6D2. Sure the 6D2 was better than the 6D, but not as much as it should have been.

Click to expand...

More specifically, the 6D2 is what the 6D "should have been". Canon seems to run a generation behind.

Great Bustard said:

So the gap between APS-C and the 6D2 was pretty small -- of course you would still get the faster shutter speed and the wider focal lengths of the FF camera -- but technologically speaking the 6D2 didnt really make much sense if you had to choose between a similarly priced APS-C camera and the 6D2.

Click to expand...

While the DR differential was nil (actually, even favoring APS-C a bit), the noise difference favored the 6D2 by the usual amount. Furthermore, for those that like shallow DOF photography, it kept that advantage as well. In terms of resolution, it still comes out on top, although not by much.

Great Bustard said:

And if you prefer longer focal lengths, the 6D2 made even less sense.

Click to expand...

Sure. However, for the $1280 (after tax, even) I got the 6D2 for, I really like it. I'll wait a while to see how FF mirrorless goes before going that way (unless there are killer deals next BF), because the RF lenses I want so badly will cost a huge amount that I just don't have, especially after having just purchased plane tickets for the family yesterday for our upcoming Japan trip. ;-)

Click to expand...

73Instamatic said:

Great Bustard said:

73Instamatic said:

What if the RP 26mp sensor IS or ISN'T the same as as 6DII ? Forgive me for asking. I know we'll find out in about a weeks time anyway.

However, I spent some time this morning going back and reading as much as I could about the 26mp sensor in the 6DII. Never having owned one, I didn't have any prior knowledge of what the scuttlebutt was when it came out.

Some posts here at DPR were excellent when it came to describing what the situation is/was without implying that the camera itself was/wasn't worth having or using.

So without rehashing all those older posts, I'm wondering: If the Base ISO DR is the same as the 6DII (no worse, but no better either), is that a deal-breaker?

Click to expand...

It will be the same sensor, obviously, just like the R was the same sensor in the 5D4. Canon's looking to maximize profit, here, so they're going to do as little as possible to the 6D2 sensor to make it work in the R.

Click to expand...

I suspect that's true.

The question though is:

Would that make the camera not worth consideration?

Click to expand...

73Instamatic said:

Or would it just be a small constraint? A single "con" in a long list of other pros and cons?

Click to expand...

Back2M said:

Two thoughts:

1. It's the same sensor (granted they'll say the microlens is different, just like the M5/6/100's sensor is an 80D variant, as is the EOS R's 5DIV with a different microlens). It will behave for better or worse, as a 6DII.

2. The base ISO will actually degrade. The EOS R was notable in this regard where the 5DIV is slightly better at 100 in particular. It's adding insult to injury for the RP.

For those that would disagree with me, Canon is not aggressive with their silicon. If it's not a variant of the 6DII sensor, what is it? Prove it.

History here of both the M5 and EOS R will repeat itself, this is a 6D II sensor at the heart of the matter.

Click to expand...

Ebrahim Saadawi said:

I looked at the A7II for a 1000$ FF camera,

-It's too cramped

-The EVF & LCD are CRAP. Below my 100$ Samsung P&S

-Video quality is absolutely terrible with heaps of aliasing & moire

-IBIS effectiveness is basically non-existent, doesn't do much.

-Battery is terrible

-AF is crap even with still subjects

BUT: if you get a few adapters and just use it as a manual focus FF sensor box, it isn't half bad!

If the RP is R in modern features and has a similar UI and experience, it's going to be a game changer at 1300$

And at 1599$ I won't be getting one. 1299$ would be the great spot.

Click to expand...

bokehmon22 said:

Back2M said:

Two thoughts:

1. It's the same sensor (granted they'll say the microlens is different, just like the M5/6/100's sensor is an 80D variant, as is the EOS R's 5DIV with a different microlens). It will behave for better or worse, as a 6DII.

2. The base ISO will actually degrade. The EOS R was notable in this regard where the 5DIV is slightly better at 100 in particular. It's adding insult to injury for the RP.

For those that would disagree with me, Canon is not aggressive with their silicon. If it's not a variant of the 6DII sensor, what is it? Prove it.

History here of both the M5 and EOS R will repeat itself, this is a 6D II sensor at the heart of the matter.

Click to expand...

Completely agree with you. It's sad that Canon user would even defend it. I would rather buy used EOS R over this for better sensor, EVF and use my existing batteries

Click to expand...

73Instamatic said:

Forgive me for asking. I know we'll find out in about a weeks time anyway.

However, I spent some time this morning going back and reading as much as I could about the 26mp sensor in the 6DII. Never having owned one, I didn't have any prior knowledge of what the scuttlebutt was when it came out.

Some posts here at DPR were excellent when it came to describing what the situation is/was without implying that the camera itself was/wasn't worth having or using.

So without rehashing all those older posts, I'm wondering: If the Base ISO DR is the same as the 6DII (no worse, but no better either), is that a deal-breaker?

Click to expand...

Lawn Lends said:

Great Bustard said:

Lawn Lends said:

Great Bustard said:

To put it simply, if you can say that the 6D2 sensor is "good enough", then you can also say an APS-C sensor is "good enough". There's a reason to choose FF over APS-C, and there's a reason to want a better sensor than what's in the 6D2, especially given that the 6D2 sensor is the lowest performing sensor of all current FF sensors.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my thoughts on the 6D2. APS-C tech advanced after the 6D came out, but the FF tech didn't seem to advance that much between the 6D and the 6D2. Sure the 6D2 was better than the 6D, but not as much as it should have been.

Click to expand...

More specifically, the 6D2 is what the 6D "should have been". Canon seems to run a generation behind.

Lawn Lends said:

So the gap between APS-C and the 6D2 was pretty small -- of course you would still get the faster shutter speed and the wider focal lengths of the FF camera -- but technologically speaking the 6D2 didnt really make much sense if you had to choose between a similarly priced APS-C camera and the 6D2.

Click to expand...

While the DR differential was nil (actually, even favoring APS-C a bit), the noise difference favored the 6D2 by the usual amount. Furthermore, for those that like shallow DOF photography, it kept that advantage as well. In terms of resolution, it still comes out on top, although not by much.

Lawn Lends said:

And if you prefer longer focal lengths, the 6D2 made even less sense.

Click to expand...

Sure. However, for the $1280 (after tax, even) I got the 6D2 for, I really like it. I'll wait a while to see how FF mirrorless goes before going that way (unless there are killer deals next BF), because the RF lenses I want so badly will cost a huge amount that I just don't have, especially after having just purchased plane tickets for the family yesterday for our upcoming Japan trip. ;-)

Click to expand...

Yes, I left out the FF noise advantage. Just like its older brother, it's photos must be strikingly better than an APS-C camera in regards to details...

Click to expand...

Lawn Lends said:

...because of the reduced noise of larger pixels.

Click to expand...

Lawn Lends said:

And that price is very nice, makes me wish the 6D went down to that price so fast, I recall spending about $2k on that camera.

Click to expand...

73Instamatic said:

Forgive me for asking. I know we'll find out in about a weeks time anyway.



So without rehashing all those older posts, I'm wondering: If the Base ISO DR is the same as the 6DII (no worse, but no better either), is that a deal-breaker?

Click to expand...

Jozef M said:

73Instamatic said:

Forgive me for asking. I know we'll find out in about a weeks time anyway.

So without rehashing all those older posts, I'm wondering: If the Base ISO DR is the same as the 6DII (no worse, but no better either), is that a deal-breaker?

Click to expand...

My m4/3 camera sensor has more base DR then that old FF Canon sensor, I would never buy a FF camera with this DR.



You can find it here: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Jozef.

Click to expand...