I'm loving this review on the R6 MK2

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.