I'm loving this review on the R6 MK2

José B said:

Justme said:

José B said:

Justme said:

Well, finally bought the R6 MK2. Likely not going to use the 6D (v1) again but will keep as backup.

I am most looking forward to the eye-tracking, IBIS, lighter weight, better AF in very low light and not having to worry about lens adjustments.

Sticking to my EF lenses for now. Want to see how my non-IS lenses perform like the 200 2.8L, 400 5.6L and 70-200 f4 non-IS. Even the original Canon 100 2.8 Macro non-IS.

Like most of my previous purchases within the last 16 years, plan to keep this camera for 8 years or more.

Click to expand...

Congrats!!! I took the plunge myself....loving it so far.

Looking forward to your comments and feedback (on AF performance and etc.) regarding your EF lenses in particular the 200/2.8 L. Is that version I or II? I had the II before and I am thinking of repurchasing one for sports.

Click to expand...

Hey congrats on the new camera. My 200 2.8L is the original non-IS model. That's why I like the IBIS.

Click to expand...

Thanks! So far my EF lenses are working nicely with the new camera. I have yet to try out the IBIS capabilities with my non-IS lenses but I'll be happy if I get 3-4 stops.

Click to expand...

Camera arrived just after lunch on Thursday here in Ottawa, Canada. Only had time to charge 1 battery while I worked. Needed to learn 4 quick things. How to set ISO, exposure compensation, change aperture and set eye-focus.

Took it out to photograph the local Boreal Owl. I have a lot to learn. For some reason the AF starts up in the top left corner. I'm not much of a user manual reader but I'm going to have to with the R6 MK2. Very different button settings from a Canon DSLR which I am used to, all the way from the 300D to 7D MK2 to 6D MK1. No more dedicated ISO button but I got the hang of it after a few tries.

Now I have to figure out the AF settings. Then I will get eye-AF to work better. I already had a preview of what it can do.

I love how bright the EVF is compared to all my DSLR's. Makes it so much easier to see subject clearly when light is low. Or at any time but especially when it gets dark.

No plans to buy a battery grip as I prefer going light. Overall it still feels a bit heavy with the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS III and 1.4x. The RF 70-200 2.8 probably feels like a feather in comparison with the EF 70-200 2.8L IS.

Happy I made the switch to R6 MK2 but have to re-learn how things work now The other eye-opener will come when I try the R6 MK2 with the non-IS lenses. First one up will be the 400 5.6L which I have had for about 19 years now. Back then we old-timers dreamt about a 400 5.6L with IS It's here, sort of.

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/image/55043863/small.jpg

Rudy Pohl said:

Justme said:

Well, finally bought the R6 MK2. Likely not going to use the 6D (v1) again but will keep as backup.

I am most looking forward to the eye-tracking, IBIS, lighter weight, better AF in very low light and not having to worry about lens adjustments.

Sticking to my EF lenses for now. Want to see how my non-IS lenses perform like the 200 2.8L, 400 5.6L and 70-200 f4 non-IS. Even the original Canon 100 2.8 Macro non-IS.

Like most of my previous purchases within the last 16 years, plan to keep this camera for 8 years or more.

Click to expand...

Congratulations on your decision to buy the R6II. I'm sure you'll be happy with it for years to come. If you can, come back and give us a 3 or 6-month review with some images.

Cheers,
Rudy

Click to expand...

Thanks Rudy.

Alastair Norcross said:

MAC said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Justme said:

Well, finally bought the R6 MK2. Likely not going to use the 6D (v1) again but will keep as backup.

I am most looking forward to the eye-tracking, IBIS, lighter weight, better AF in very low light and not having to worry about lens adjustments.

Sticking to my EF lenses for now. Want to see how my non-IS lenses perform like the 200 2.8L, 400 5.6L and 70-200 f4 non-IS. Even the original Canon 100 2.8 Macro non-IS.

Like most of my previous purchases within the last 16 years, plan to keep this camera for 8 years or more.

Click to expand...

I think you'll love it. I got mine on Saturday, arrived early from Canada.

Click to expand...

why Canada? did u pay more? R U keeping R?

Click to expand...

It was a Canon Pricewatch deal. It's been out of stock at B&H,

where I usually buy with the Payboo credit card to avoid sales tax.

Click to expand...

hmm, maybe you should state that differently

Alastair Norcross said:

The Canada deal was no sales tax, free shipping, and a free lens adapter thrown in, so I actually got it cheaper than buying in the US.

Click to expand...

but warranty for non-US?

Alastair Norcross said:

I remember that's also how I got my original M6 way back (a Canadian store shipping to the US with no sales tax, and the EVF thrown in for a token price). I'm not keeping the R. I sold it to MPB to help get the R6II. I also sold my EF-EFR control ring adapter (and one of my two EF-EFM adapters), because I don't have any EF lenses anymore, and I figured the free basic adapter would cover me in case I ever want to pick up a cheap EF lens some day. I couldn't justify keeping two full frame cameras.

Click to expand...

I like my small RP a lot. Keeping it for times I don't want to change lenses.

Alastair Norcross said:

The R6II is better in every way, except for a little resolution, which I'm not really noticing so far.

Click to expand...

not surprising per Bryan at the digital picture

• The R8's 24.2 MP imaging sensor out resolves the R's higher 30.4 MP results

Alastair Norcross said:

I really liked my R, especially for the price I paid for it refurbished, but the R6II is just amazing so far.

Click to expand...

yes, R was a bridge to get to this point, congrats!

Alastair Norcross said:

By the way, I see you have the R8 in your gear list. Do you have it already? I thought it wasn't shipping yet.

Click to expand...

Busted

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

The R7 is definitely better for focal length limited situations, but I don't do a lot of wildlife photography.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not completely convinced of that considering the clarity of the new 24 mpxl sensor with less aggressive anti-alias filter - ie, all pixels jammed in so tight are not created equal, particularly when there is a sensor filter involved - no R7 for me, suggest using the $ instead for another lens

I figure if I did wildlife photography, for me the RF 100 -400 + RF 1.4 ext would be enough and if not, add the RF 800 F11

shoot c-raw at 20 fps for 10 seconds with R8

with long FF lenses available, no R7 for me.

The m6II may be my last crop camera

The R6 II Definitely looks like a Sony sensor with so much false color and moire.

juanmaasecas said:

The R6 II Definitely looks like a Sony sensor with so much false color and moire.

Click to expand...

Can’t say I’ve noticed either thing so far. I’m very pleased with the results. Colors look great, and no moire yet. I process with DXO, so maybe the moire correction is taking care of it. If so, I’d rather have processing software correct for moire in a sharper image than have a filter on the camera prevent it while removing some sharpness at the same time. Perhaps I’ll think differently if I ever take an important shot with moire that the software can’t handle. Until then, it’s a non issue to me.

MAC said:

Alastair Norcross said:

MAC said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Justme said:

Well, finally bought the R6 MK2. Likely not going to use the 6D (v1) again but will keep as backup.

I am most looking forward to the eye-tracking, IBIS, lighter weight, better AF in very low light and not having to worry about lens adjustments.

Sticking to my EF lenses for now. Want to see how my non-IS lenses perform like the 200 2.8L, 400 5.6L and 70-200 f4 non-IS. Even the original Canon 100 2.8 Macro non-IS.

Like most of my previous purchases within the last 16 years, plan to keep this camera for 8 years or more.

Click to expand...

I think you'll love it. I got mine on Saturday, arrived early from Canada.

Click to expand...

why Canada? did u pay more? R U keeping R?

Click to expand...

It was a Canon Pricewatch deal. It's been out of stock at B&H,

where I usually buy with the Payboo credit card to avoid sales tax.

Click to expand...

hmm, maybe you should state that differently

Click to expand...

Oops! Yes, of course, your honor. I meant I use the Payboo credit card so that B&H gives me their bonus for using it, which just happens to be the same amount of money as the sales tax that I also legitimately pay.

MAC said:

MAC said:

The Canada deal was no sales tax, free shipping, and a free lens adapter thrown in, so I actually got it cheaper than buying in the US.

Click to expand...

but warranty for non-US?

Click to expand...

Yes, the warranty card explicitly states Canada and the US. I think it's all the same geographical area, as far as Canon is concerned.

MAC said:

MAC said:

I remember that's also how I got my original M6 way back (a Canadian store shipping to the US with no sales tax, and the EVF thrown in for a token price). I'm not keeping the R. I sold it to MPB to help get the R6II. I also sold my EF-EFR control ring adapter (and one of my two EF-EFM adapters), because I don't have any EF lenses anymore, and I figured the free basic adapter would cover me in case I ever want to pick up a cheap EF lens some day. I couldn't justify keeping two full frame cameras.

Click to expand...

I like my small RP a lot. Keeping it for times I don't want to change lenses.

MAC said:

The R6II is better in every way, except for a little resolution, which I'm not really noticing so far.

Click to expand...

not surprising per Bryan at the digital picture

• The R8's 24.2 MP imaging sensor out resolves the R's higher 30.4 MP results

MAC said:

I really liked my R, especially for the price I paid for it refurbished, but the R6II is just amazing so far.

Click to expand...

yes, R was a bridge to get to this point, congrats!

MAC said:

By the way, I see you have the R8 in your gear list. Do you have it already? I thought it wasn't shipping yet.

Click to expand...

Busted

MAC said:

MAC said:

MAC said:

The R7 is definitely better for focal length limited situations, but I don't do a lot of wildlife photography.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not completely convinced of that considering the clarity of the new 24 mpxl sensor with less aggressive anti-alias filter - ie, all pixels jammed in so tight are not created equal, particularly when there is a sensor filter involved - no R7 for me, suggest using the $ instead for another lens

I figure if I did wildlife photography, for me the RF 100 -400 + RF 1.4 ext would be enough and if not, add the RF 800 F11

shoot c-raw at 20 fps for 10 seconds with R8

with long FF lenses available, no R7 for me.

Click to expand...

Yes, that seems sensible. I'm going to wait to see how much I find myself using my R7, now that I have the R6II. If I did a lot more wildlife, I think I'd be using it quite a bit. But, as you say, the RF 800 F11 on the R6II gets you close to the reach of the 100-400 + 1.4X on the R7. I do like the idea of having the R7 as a second camera for sports and events, but again, I'm not sure how much I'll need it. We'll see. For travel, the R7 is definitely not replacing my M6II, so it's all about when I'll need the amazing speed and AF system of the R7 alongside the even speedier and even more amazing AF of the R6II. I'm really spoiled right now.

MAC said:

The m6II may be my last crop camera

Click to expand...

Alastair Norcross said:

MAC said:

Alastair Norcross said:

MAC said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Justme said:

Well, finally bought the R6 MK2. Likely not going to use the 6D (v1) again but will keep as backup.

I am most looking forward to the eye-tracking, IBIS, lighter weight, better AF in very low light and not having to worry about lens adjustments.

Sticking to my EF lenses for now. Want to see how my non-IS lenses perform like the 200 2.8L, 400 5.6L and 70-200 f4 non-IS. Even the original Canon 100 2.8 Macro non-IS.

Like most of my previous purchases within the last 16 years, plan to keep this camera for 8 years or more.

Click to expand...

I think you'll love it. I got mine on Saturday, arrived early from Canada.

Click to expand...

why Canada? did u pay more? R U keeping R?

Click to expand...

It was a Canon Pricewatch deal. It's been out of stock at B&H,

where I usually buy with the Payboo credit card to avoid sales tax.

Click to expand...

hmm, maybe you should state that differently

Click to expand...

Oops! Yes, of course, your honor. I meant I use the Payboo credit card so that B&H gives me their bonus for using it, which just happens to be the same amount of money as the sales tax that I also legitimately pay.

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

The Canada deal was no sales tax, free shipping, and a free lens adapter thrown in, so I actually got it cheaper than buying in the US.

Click to expand...

but warranty for non-US?

Click to expand...

Yes, the warranty card explicitly states Canada and the US. I think it's all the same geographical area, as far as Canon is concerned.

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

I remember that's also how I got my original M6 way back (a Canadian store shipping to the US with no sales tax, and the EVF thrown in for a token price). I'm not keeping the R. I sold it to MPB to help get the R6II. I also sold my EF-EFR control ring adapter (and one of my two EF-EFM adapters), because I don't have any EF lenses anymore, and I figured the free basic adapter would cover me in case I ever want to pick up a cheap EF lens some day. I couldn't justify keeping two full frame cameras.

Click to expand...

I like my small RP a lot. Keeping it for times I don't want to change lenses.

Alastair Norcross said:

The R6II is better in every way, except for a little resolution, which I'm not really noticing so far.

Click to expand...

not surprising per Bryan at the digital picture

• The R8's 24.2 MP imaging sensor out resolves the R's higher 30.4 MP results

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The problem with that comparison is that it uses different lenses. I tried, but couldn't find, a comparison with the same lens on that site.

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

I really liked my R, especially for the price I paid for it refurbished, but the R6II is just amazing so far.

Click to expand...

yes, R was a bridge to get to this point, congrats!

Alastair Norcross said:

By the way, I see you have the R8 in your gear list. Do you have it already? I thought it wasn't shipping yet.

Click to expand...

Busted

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

The R7 is definitely better for focal length limited situations, but I don't do a lot of wildlife photography.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not completely convinced of that considering the clarity of the new 24 mpxl sensor with less aggressive anti-alias filter - ie, all pixels jammed in so tight are not created equal, particularly when there is a sensor filter involved - no R7 for me, suggest using the $ instead for another lens

I figure if I did wildlife photography, for me the RF 100 -400 + RF 1.4 ext would be enough and if not, add the RF 800 F11

shoot c-raw at 20 fps for 10 seconds with R8

with long FF lenses available, no R7 for me.

Click to expand...

Yes, that seems sensible. I'm going to wait to see how much I find myself using my R7, now that I have the R6II. If I did a lot more wildlife, I think I'd be using it quite a bit. But, as you say, the RF 800 F11 on the R6II gets you close to the reach of the 100-400 + 1.4X on the R7. I do like the idea of having the R7 as a second camera for sports and events, but again, I'm not sure how much I'll need it. We'll see. For travel, the R7 is definitely not replacing my M6II, so it's all about when I'll need the amazing speed and AF system of the R7 alongside the even speedier and even more amazing AF of the R6II. I'm really spoiled right now.

Alastair Norcross said:

The m6II may be my last crop camera

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

[text snipped]

Justme said:

Camera arrived just after lunch on Thursday here in Ottawa, Canada. Only had time to charge 1 battery while I worked. Needed to learn 4 quick things. How to set ISO, exposure compensation, change aperture and set eye-focus.

Took it out to photograph the local Boreal Owl. I have a lot to learn. For some reason the AF starts up in the top left corner. I'm not much of a user manual reader but I'm going to have to with the R6 MK2. Very different button settings from a Canon DSLR which I am used to, all the way from the 300D to 7D MK2 to 6D MK1. No more dedicated ISO button but I got the hang of it after a few tries.

Now I have to figure out the AF settings. Then I will get eye-AF to work better. I already had a preview of what it can do.

I love how bright the EVF is compared to all my DSLR's. Makes it so much easier to see subject clearly when light is low. Or at any time but especially when it gets dark.

No plans to buy a battery grip as I prefer going light. Overall it still feels a bit heavy with the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS III and 1.4x. The RF 70-200 2.8 probably feels like a feather in comparison with the EF 70-200 2.8L IS.

Happy I made the switch to R6 MK2 but have to re-learn how things work now The other eye-opener will come when I try the R6 MK2 with the non-IS lenses. First one up will be the 400 5.6L which I have had for about 19 years now. Back then we old-timers dreamt about a 400 5.6L with IS It's here, sort of.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed the EVF is very bright!

I've been busy the past few days trying to configure my settings in C1, C2 and C3. Customized a couple of buttons too---one to switch to ES and the other one to bring controls to my Speedlight.

For me the vertical grip is essential. I shot indoor volleyball two weeks ago with my Sony 6600 and 135mm lens and my right wrist was sore after the event. I also shoot portraiture thus the vertical grip is very helpful.

Ditto your IBIS comment.

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

MAC said:

Alastair Norcross said:

MAC said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Justme said:

Well, finally bought the R6 MK2. Likely not going to use the 6D (v1) again but will keep as backup.

I am most looking forward to the eye-tracking, IBIS, lighter weight, better AF in very low light and not having to worry about lens adjustments.

Sticking to my EF lenses for now. Want to see how my non-IS lenses perform like the 200 2.8L, 400 5.6L and 70-200 f4 non-IS. Even the original Canon 100 2.8 Macro non-IS.

Like most of my previous purchases within the last 16 years, plan to keep this camera for 8 years or more.

Click to expand...

I think you'll love it. I got mine on Saturday, arrived early from Canada.

Click to expand...

why Canada? did u pay more? R U keeping R?

Click to expand...

It was a Canon Pricewatch deal. It's been out of stock at B&H,

where I usually buy with the Payboo credit card to avoid sales tax.

Click to expand...

hmm, maybe you should state that differently

Click to expand...

Oops! Yes, of course, your honor. I meant I use the Payboo credit card so that B&H gives me their bonus for using it, which just happens to be the same amount of money as the sales tax that I also legitimately pay.

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

The Canada deal was no sales tax, free shipping, and a free lens adapter thrown in, so I actually got it cheaper than buying in the US.

Click to expand...

but warranty for non-US?

Click to expand...

Yes, the warranty card explicitly states Canada and the US. I think it's all the same geographical area, as far as Canon is concerned.

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

I remember that's also how I got my original M6 way back (a Canadian store shipping to the US with no sales tax, and the EVF thrown in for a token price). I'm not keeping the R. I sold it to MPB to help get the R6II. I also sold my EF-EFR control ring adapter (and one of my two EF-EFM adapters), because I don't have any EF lenses anymore, and I figured the free basic adapter would cover me in case I ever want to pick up a cheap EF lens some day. I couldn't justify keeping two full frame cameras.

Click to expand...

I like my small RP a lot. Keeping it for times I don't want to change lenses.

Alastair Norcross said:

The R6II is better in every way, except for a little resolution, which I'm not really noticing so far.

Click to expand...

not surprising per Bryan at the digital picture

• The R8's 24.2 MP imaging sensor out resolves the R's higher 30.4 MP results

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The problem with that comparison is that it uses different lenses. I tried, but couldn't find, a comparison with the same lens on that site.

Click to expand...

oops, sorry about that link above

actually Bryan has done the comparison with one lens and many canon cameras

he uses the RF 85 F1.2 (non-ds)

check this link, and then change the various cameras

Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

I really liked my R, especially for the price I paid for it refurbished, but the R6II is just amazing so far.

Click to expand...

yes, R was a bridge to get to this point, congrats!

Alastair Norcross said:

By the way, I see you have the R8 in your gear list. Do you have it already? I thought it wasn't shipping yet.

Click to expand...

Busted

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

The R7 is definitely better for focal length limited situations, but I don't do a lot of wildlife photography.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not completely convinced of that considering the clarity of the new 24 mpxl sensor with less aggressive anti-alias filter - ie, all pixels jammed in so tight are not created equal, particularly when there is a sensor filter involved - no R7 for me, suggest using the $ instead for another lens

I figure if I did wildlife photography, for me the RF 100 -400 + RF 1.4 ext would be enough and if not, add the RF 800 F11

shoot c-raw at 20 fps for 10 seconds with R8

with long FF lenses available, no R7 for me.

Click to expand...

Yes, that seems sensible. I'm going to wait to see how much I find myself using my R7, now that I have the R6II. If I did a lot more wildlife, I think I'd be using it quite a bit. But, as you say, the RF 800 F11 on the R6II gets you close to the reach of the 100-400 + 1.4X on the R7. I do like the idea of having the R7 as a second camera for sports and events, but again, I'm not sure how much I'll need it. We'll see. For travel, the R7 is definitely not replacing my M6II, so it's all about when I'll need the amazing speed and AF system of the R7 alongside the even speedier and even more amazing AF of the R6II. I'm really spoiled right now.

Alastair Norcross said:

The m6II may be my last crop camera

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MAC said:

Alastair Norcross said:

MAC said:

MAC said:

MAC said:

The R6II is better in every way, except for a little resolution, which I'm not really noticing so far.

Click to expand...

not surprising per Bryan at the digital picture

• The R8's 24.2 MP imaging sensor out resolves the R's higher 30.4 MP results

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The problem with that comparison is that it uses different lenses. I tried, but couldn't find, a comparison with the same lens on that site.

Click to expand...

oops, sorry about that link above

actually Bryan has done the comparison with one lens and many canon cameras

he uses the RF 85 F1.2 (non-ds)

check this link, and then change the various cameras

Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Click to expand...

Thanks (I don't know why I didn't find that when I looked before). The R6II does look a bit sharper there. It would be good if there were a way to equalize output size (like the compare option on the DPR comparometer), but I think it's possible to tell from that comparison that the R6II produces slightly sharper results, despite having a lower resolution sensor. But, frankly, the difference in resolution between 30MP and 24MP is pretty insignificant anyway. Differences like that are really just psychological. Even the much bigger difference between 24MP and 45MP is still only 37% in terms of linear resolution.

MAC said:

MAC said:

MAC said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

juanmaasecas said:

The R6 II Definitely looks like a Sony sensor with so much false color and moire.

Click to expand...

Do you have some examples to share?

What does false colour and the looks of the Sony sensor?

Ephemeris said:

juanmaasecas said:

The R6 II Definitely looks like a Sony sensor with so much false color and moire.

Click to expand...

Do you have some examples to share?

What does false colour and the looks of the Sony sensor?

Click to expand...

In the web they posted before, I used rf 85 1.2 in r6 ii and eos R and the difference in moire and false color is huge.

It's one of the things that made me move away from Sony. Very sharp files, but feeling unnaturally Sharp, with tons of artifacts everywhere. I was happy with my R before for detail, and I'm happy with my R5 now. I don't want even weaker AA filters. The R5 might be already on the limit.

juanmaasecas said:

Ephemeris said:

juanmaasecas said:

The R6 II Definitely looks like a Sony sensor with so much false color and moire.

Click to expand...

Do you have some examples to share?

What does false colour and the looks of the Sony sensor?

Click to expand...

In the web they posted before, I used rf 85 1.2 in r6 ii and eos R and the difference in moire and false color is huge.

Click to expand...

You might want to look again. If you follow MAC's link to the comparison that uses the same lens on both cameras (very important to compare on the same lens, otherwise comparisons are not between sensors), you should come to a different conclusion. I've just checked the R6II and the R with the RF 85 F1.2 at F4, and there's actually more false color on the R, and no moire on either. More importantly, you might want to actually listen to people who have owned both cameras, since they are in a position to compare across lots of different shooting situations.

juanmaasecas said:

It's one of the things that made me move away from Sony. Very sharp files, but feeling unnaturally Sharp, with tons of artifacts everywhere. I was happy with my R before for detail, and I'm happy with my R5 now. I don't want even weaker AA filters. The R5 might be already on the limit.

Click to expand...

juanmaasecas said:

Ephemeris said:

juanmaasecas said:

The R6 II Definitely looks like a Sony sensor with so much false color and moire.

Click to expand...

Do you have some examples to share?

What does false colour and the looks of the Sony sensor?

Click to expand...

In the web they posted before, I used rf 85 1.2 in r6 ii and eos R and the difference in moire and false color is huge.

Click to expand...

Which web sorry?

juanmaasecas said:

It's one of the things that made me move away from Sony. Very sharp files, but feeling unnaturally Sharp, with tons of artifacts everywhere. I was happy with my R before for detail, and I'm happy with my R5 now. I don't want even weaker AA filters. The R5 might be already on the limit.

Click to expand...

Alastair Norcross said:

juanmaasecas said:

Ephemeris said:

juanmaasecas said:

The R6 II Definitely looks like a Sony sensor with so much false color and moire.

Click to expand...

Do you have some examples to share?

What does false colour and the looks of the Sony sensor?

Click to expand...

In the web they posted before, I used rf 85 1.2 in r6 ii and eos R and the difference in moire and false color is huge.

Click to expand...

You might want to look again. If you follow MAC's link to the comparison that uses the same lens on both cameras (very important to compare on the same lens, otherwise comparisons are not between sensors), you should come to a different conclusion. I've just checked the R6II and the R with the RF 85 F1.2 at F4, and there's actually more false color on the R, and no moire on either. More importantly, you might want to actually listen to people who have owned both cameras, since they are in a position to compare across lots of different shooting situations.

Click to expand...

What is meant by false colour here?

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

It's one of the things that made me move away from Sony. Very sharp files, but feeling unnaturally Sharp, with tons of artifacts everywhere. I was happy with my R before for detail, and I'm happy with my R5 now. I don't want even weaker AA filters. The R5 might be already on the limit.

Click to expand...

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

Click to expand...

Ephemeris said:

Alastair Norcross said:

juanmaasecas said:

Ephemeris said:

juanmaasecas said:

The R6 II Definitely looks like a Sony sensor with so much false color and moire.

Click to expand...

Do you have some examples to share?

What does false colour and the looks of the Sony sensor?

Click to expand...

In the web they posted before, I used rf 85 1.2 in r6 ii and eos R and the difference in moire and false color is huge.

Click to expand...

You might want to look again. If you follow MAC's link to the comparison that uses the same lens on both cameras (very important to compare on the same lens, otherwise comparisons are not between sensors), you should come to a different conclusion. I've just checked the R6II and the R with the RF 85 F1.2 at F4, and there's actually more false color on the R, and no moire on either. More importantly, you might want to actually listen to people who have owned both cameras, since they are in a position to compare across lots of different shooting situations.

Click to expand...

What is meant by false colour here?

Click to expand...

If you follow MAC's link to the TDP comparison of the RF 85 F1.2 on different R cameras, and use it to compare the R6II and R, you'll see images of part of a test chart. At the top, you'll see a bunch of small lines getting closer and closer together as you move from right to left. Even though the lines themselves are black on a white background, you can see some color there. On the R6II, the color is mostly at the left end (where the lines are closer together). On the R, the color extends further to the right, which is why I said that there is actually more, not less, false color on the R than the R6II. I presume that is what juanmaasecas was referring to. If not, then I have no idea.

Ephemeris said:

Ephemeris said:

Ephemeris said:

It's one of the things that made me move away from Sony. Very sharp files, but feeling unnaturally Sharp, with tons of artifacts everywhere. I was happy with my R before for detail, and I'm happy with my R5 now. I don't want even weaker AA filters. The R5 might be already on the limit.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi. Thanks for your reply it's most helpful.

Below is two crops of the same image. They are both I think where the false colour is described.

Is this not mostly created by the renderer here rather than the camera.

















Alastair Norcross wrote:

Ephemeris wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

juanmaasecas wrote:

Ephemeris wrote:

juanmaasecas wrote:

The R6 II Definitely looks like a Sony sensor with so much false color and moire.

Do you have some examples to share?

What does false colour and the looks of the Sony sensor?

In the web they posted before, I used rf 85 1.2 in r6 ii and eos R and the difference in moire and false color is huge.

You might want to look again. If you follow MAC's link to the comparison that uses the same lens on both cameras (very important to compare on the same lens, otherwise comparisons are not between sensors), you should come to a different conclusion. I've just checked the R6II and the R with the RF 85 F1.2 at F4, and there's actually more false color on the R, and no moire on either. More importantly, you might want to actually listen to people who have owned both cameras, since they are in a position to compare across lots of different shooting situations.

What is meant by false colour here?

If you follow MAC's link to the TDP comparison of the RF 85 F1.2 on different R cameras, and use it to compare the R6II and R, you'll see images of part of a test chart. At the top, you'll see a bunch of small lines getting closer and closer together as you move from right to left. Even though the lines themselves are black on a white background, you can see some color there. On the R6II, the color is mostly at the left end (where the lines are closer together). On the R, the color extends further to the right, which is why I said that there is actually more, not less, false color on the R than the R6II. I presume that is what juanmaasecas was referring to. If not, then I have no idea.

It's one of the things that made me move away from Sony. Very sharp files, but feeling unnaturally Sharp, with tons of artifacts everywhere. I was happy with my R before for detail, and I'm happy with my R5 now. I don't want even weaker AA filters. The R5 might be already on the limit.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

Ephemeris said:

Hi. Thanks for your reply it's most helpful.

Below is two crops of the same image. They are both I think where the false colour is described.

Is this not mostly created by the renderer here rather than the camera.

Click to expand...

It's possible. It doesn't really bother me, because I've never encountered it in an actual photo. I think some people just go looking for problems. So far, I've found that the image quality on the R6II is excellent.

Ephemeris said:

Click to expand...

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
Equipment in profile

Alastair Norcross said:

Ephemeris said:

Hi. Thanks for your reply it's most helpful.

Below is two crops of the same image. They are both I think where the false colour is described.

Is this not mostly created by the renderer here rather than the camera.

Click to expand...

It's possible. It doesn't really bother me, because I've never encountered it in an actual photo. I think some people just go looking for problems. So far, I've found that the image quality on the R6II is excellent.

Click to expand...

I will have to download and look on my PC but if this is a matter of a vision renderer then I suppose we can disregard it.

I've not encountered it personally but I don't have a 6II or maybe an R7

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Click to expand...

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

Click to expand...

Ephemeris said:

I value low-light shooting as a top priority which is why I didn't consider the R5. I know noise-reduction in post will help to mitigiate the noise issue but the R6 and R6 II have a headstart in this area. I'm not afraid to shoot at ISO 102,000 if I had to.I will avoid using that ISO if I can.

We use the R5s at high ISO settings as a regular occurrence but I think in a few bodies time you will be in the MegaISO range (MISO?).

Click to expand...

Tying up loose ends beforre the site closes

Hope not in the R6 MK3 Canon should always have a low mp camera.