R6 observations & test shots (PICS)

RHutch wrote:

Interesting to see that you also have a Canon 5Diii. I bought mine new in 2012 & very tempted with the R6. I was a little surprised Canon came out with a 20MP sensor rather than a 24MP sensor.

Hi Randy! Same here. It's actually a little hard for me to get my head around. By nature alone I expected at LEAST a 24MP sensor for the R6. Still, comparing the image sizes from the R6 to the M6 (which has a 24MP sensor), the images are only slightly smaller. And 20MP was once touted by Canon as being "ideal for wildlife". I just overlapped two images from the weekend (see image below) to see how much physical difference there was between the 20MP and 24MP sensor and it's not so bad. Canon are using the same sensor (with a different AA filter) in their relatively new 1DS III pro-camera so it's certainly no slouch.
.

This is starting to mess with my head too...

.
The other weird thing is trying to appreciate that the M6 has a physically much smaller sensor (APS-C) compared to the physically larger Full Frame sensor on the R6. It's not until you view each sensor side-by-side (above) that you can appreciate the differences. Canon said the sensor pixels on the R6 are large (larger than the R5) - so I expect the R6 to have very good low-light performance. We know that the AF performance at -6.5EV is already pushing ahead of the pack.
.

Comparison between sensor sizes and their differences.

I suppose the IQ is close and maybe better than the Mark III, due to a much more modern sensor. What are your early thoughts on the IQ between the R6 & Mark iii?

I feel I need more time shooting with similar subjects in similar lighting to be able to answer that question accurately. I barely used the EF 100-400mmL II lens on the R6 yesterday but spent a lot of time on location with it on the 5D III and especially the 6D.
.
I think the IQ is very similar although the WB seems much better on the R6 if you're a JPEG shooter like me. This is going to be a tricky question for me in some ways because when using the 5D III (which was my work camera), clients often insisted on RAW files which I then had to process and edit to my own limitations - whereas on the 6D (which was my leisure camera), I took mostly JPEG images. This resulted in similar results to the R6 for me.
.
But the 6D images required a bit more editing to tweak the shots I took with it - yet the R6 images didn't need much work at all (if any). The 6D shots often seemed slightly coarser than the 5D III shots. In addition, I feel that the R6 shots are slightly smoother and more refined than the 6D shots. I think this might be because the 6D has more noise at the mid-ISO settings compared to the R6. The R6 was taking shots at ISO 5000 with noise that was barely noticeable to me until I checked the EXIF data. For shots taken just after sunset I was shooting at 400mm with ISO 2500 and the noise was barely noticeable (and very easily corrected if needed). If I reduced the images, any noise all but vanished. It's peculiar.
.
They are similar to the 5D III images - or at least they are to me. Color saturation is similar but the WB feels more accurate. Image dimensions are close. Handling is quite different. A lot of photographers preferred the 5D III over the 5D IV (especially with RAW files) but I'd say the shots from the EOS 5D III are very similar to the R6. The shot of the bikers (above) isn't a good example from the R6 because I had three seconds to raise the camera and my settings on the camera needed to be altered before I could catch the shot.. but I took it anyway. Hence it's slightly overexposed because I was messing around with the exposure metering and shutter speeds earlier and wasn't prepared to be shooting things out of my window (whilst not drawing too much attention to myself from the other bikers). Overall, I like the images from the R6 and I prefer the mirrorless handling over DSLRs any day.

.
The two shots below were taken with different cameras and different exposures and with/without filters.  But the amount of detail captured is similar, the lens was the same, and the subjects match.  A real test of the R6 would be to shoot the same type of subject under the same type of lighting and compare any relevant details in comparison.  I was shooting mostly architecture and portraits with the 5D III.
.

R6 + EF 100-400mmL II lens - handheld + JPEG - taken at Sunset with NO CPL filter. 
This image has only barely been edited.

6D + EF 100-400mmL II lens - handheld + JPEG - taken at near midday (CPL filter used)
The CPL was essential avoid having the sunlight overexpose the bright bird/post.  Colors were also warmed and enhanced.  This image has also been edited to benefit shadow recovery and reduce anti-aliasing.  Color saturation has also been adjusted selectively and it's possible some sharpening and noise-reduction was applied (I don't remember).