Actual Photo Quality of Canon R6 vs that of Canon 5d MkII

[gonetropo]

I would appreciate anyone's comments about the actual quality difference they have seen in the photographic output from these two almost identically sized sensors. Excluding all of the advantages of mirrorless vs DSLR, ibis vs no in body stabilization, frames per second, high ISO performance, burst and write speeds, auto focus, eye tracking, new R lens capabilities vs EF lenses, etc, what improvements in the appearance of the photo files, Jpg or Raw, would be most noticeable?
best,
gonetropo
personal photos - https://www.instagram.com/duffhughes/

 

[Eddie Rizk]

I would appreciate anyone's comments about the actual quality difference they have seen in the photographic output from these two almost identically sized sensors. Excluding all of the advantages of mirrorless vs DSLR, ibis vs no in body stabilization, frames per second, high ISO performance, burst and write speeds, auto focus, eye tracking, new R lens capabilities vs EF lenses, etc, what improvements in the appearance of the photo files, Jpg or Raw, would be most noticeable?
best,
gonetropo
personal photos - https://www.instagram.com/duffhughes/

Looking at samples, for any scene that is within the limitations of the sensor, I don't see a lot of improvement in IQ for the last 10+ years.

Assuming two cameras ten years apart in age (like my 6D and my R) take a photo at base ISO, well focused, property exposed, and within the DR limitations of the sensor, I don't see any improvement at all

The differences will be on the margins, such as higher contrast scenes that use the DR or lower light situations that push the high ISO capability. That's the distant secondary reason to upgrade for me.

The main reason to upgrade is the handling. All of the mirrorless advantages, like more accurate focus, lower light focus, exposure preview, and better information and controls. None of that makes my best pictures any better. It does give me more keepers out of every shoot and more of my best pictures. It also reduces my time on the property for real estate shoots. (For those, the DR reduces my processing time also, because I don't have to use brackets and HDR often)

When the stars align and everything is just right, my 6D images look as good as any camera from any year at any price. That doesn't happen as often as it does with my R. If you shoot action, the R6 will be just as much of an improvement. I don't, so I'll stay with the R for a few years. It has the same DR and high ISO capability as the 5D4. That has actually mattered on a number of shoots.

--
That's my opinion, and it's worth what you paid for it.
Eddie Rizk
The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
Formerly "Ed Rizk"
My email was hacked and unrecoverable along with all associated accounts, so I got permission to create a new one.

 

[davev8]

I would appreciate anyone's comments about the actual quality difference they have seen in the photographic output from these two almost identically sized sensors. Excluding all of the advantages of mirrorless vs DSLR, ibis vs no in body stabilization, frames per second, high ISO performance, burst and write speeds, auto focus, eye tracking, new R lens capabilities vs EF lenses, etc, what improvements in the appearance of the photo files, Jpg or Raw, would be most noticeable?
best,
gonetropo
personal photos - https://www.instagram.com/duffhughes/

often you won't see any difference unless you use the better low light ability for cleaner photos at high ISO or use the much more dynamic range that's available...you may say that you expose your photos correctly and have no problems with lack of DR ..same with my 5Dmki i did not have a DR problem ..

But having more DR opens up more photo opportunity and you will soon realise lack of DR can cramp your style

Here is a photo i wouldn't dream of talking with a 5Dmk2 ..it was in low but bright sun and i wanted to return detail in the sky ..the brightly coloured beach huts look almost black in the RAW file ..this would have been a noisy mess takan with my 5Dmk1 it was taken with my eos M5 that has about 1.5 stops more Dr than a 5Dmk2 but still 1 stop less than the R6...(note is was quickly edited on a laptop that i did not calibrate the screan)





--
.
.
.
.
Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me it is bad I know it is .....................................................................................................
the EOS M is not dead and wont be for a long time ....as long as you don't want a flagship camera with a VF...if that's the case it died sometime ago
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
.........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
.....................................................................................................
If you wait for a camera that will tick all your boxes ....by then you will have more boxes to tick..... so the wait continues .....David Appleton

 

[David Pavlich]

While not fitting your parameters, I can see a distinct difference between shots taken with the 5DIII I had and my current 5DIV. The big difference is in the higher ISO range. I can save shots at 12,800 ISO with my 5DIV but the old workhorse 5DIII struggled to have keepers at 6400 ISO.

How does this help you? The sensor technology in the R6 is much, much better than the 5dII. And as already mentioned, just the focusing ability alone of the R6 will guarantee more keepers as long as you do your part as the operator.

David

 

[skyrunr]

Very cool. I somewhat agree, however the JPG engines, metering, and experience are very different. IMO, Nikon ruined the experience by removing basic buttons and dials from the Z series. Because of that I'm trying a Canon (other than using friend's here and there) for the first time!

The R because I don't need to move mountains, it checks off the most boxes, but 24mp can be limiting. Canon has a better selection of f4 glass too. I'll have re-invest in strobe lighting to make up the stop or two. I went with the STM 24-105 because I'd rather use primes than push the limits of a 4X zoom. Also, planning on having a 2nd APS-C camera with an adapted 50 or 85 f2.8 lens is VERY useful. If I need a quick wide large DOF shot I'll snap a photo from my phone on the hot shoe.

Regarding the R, IBIS, CFE, and a built-in flash would have been IDEAL though. Anything in the rumor mill on something like that coming down the line? I realize the flash is a pipe dream, but a basic modeling warm LED would be great.

 

[Karl_Guttag]

I would appreciate anyone's comments about the actual quality difference they have seen in the photographic output from these two almost identically sized sensors. Excluding all of the advantages of mirrorless vs DSLR, ibis vs no in body stabilization, frames per second, high ISO performance, burst and write speeds, auto focus, eye tracking, new R lens capabilities vs EF lenses, etc, what improvements in the appearance of the photo files, Jpg or Raw, would be most noticeable?
best,
gonetropo
personal photos - https://www.instagram.com/duffhughes/

You have kind of eliminated everything almost everything in the question including many of the advantages related to the sensor. Mostly what has changed in sensors is better performance in low light and on-sensor support for autofocusing as well as faster burst rates without sacrificing image quality.

It's not like the digital SLRs couldn't take great pictures 10 or even 20 years ago. The main thing you get with a newer sensor with about the same pixel size better dynamic range and better high ISO performance. You have more latitude if the exposure is a bit off or the lighting is not as good.

You are also going "down market" a little the 5D to R6. The 5D mk.ii intro price of $2699 adjusted for inflation is about $3,143 or about halfway between the R5 and R6.

 

[Chris Giles]

I would appreciate anyone's comments about the actual quality difference they have seen in the photographic output from these two almost identically sized sensors. Excluding all of the advantages of mirrorless vs DSLR, ibis vs no in body stabilization, frames per second, high ISO performance, burst and write speeds, auto focus, eye tracking, new R lens capabilities vs EF lenses, etc, what improvements in the appearance of the photo files, Jpg or Raw, would be most noticeable?
best,
gonetropo
personal photos - https://www.instagram.com/duffhughes/

In a nutshell it has the same 'Canon colour' as the 5D3 but without the downside of absolutely awful shadow recovery and the highlights recover better too.

There's other things but that's the gist of it.

Other than the 5DSr it's Canon's best sensor to date since the 5D3 (when it comes to the colour).

Just to put it in here while I can, no, the R5's sensor isn't as good on balance.

 

[dc8b707]

I would appreciate anyone's comments about the actual quality difference they have seen in the photographic output from these two almost identically sized sensors. Excluding all of the advantages of mirrorless vs DSLR, ibis vs no in body stabilization, frames per second, high ISO performance, burst and write speeds, auto focus, eye tracking, new R lens capabilities vs EF lenses, etc, what improvements in the appearance of the photo files, Jpg or Raw, would be most noticeable?
best,
gonetropo
personal photos - https://www.instagram.com/duffhughes/

Looking at samples, for any scene that is within the limitations of the sensor, I don't see a lot of improvement in IQ for the last 10+ years.

Assuming two cameras ten years apart in age (like my 6D and my R) take a photo at base ISO, well focused, property exposed, and within the DR limitations of the sensor, I don't see any improvement at all

The differences will be on the margins, such as higher contrast scenes that use the DR or lower light situations that push the high ISO capability. That's the distant secondary reason to upgrade for me.

The main reason to upgrade is the handling. All of the mirrorless advantages, like more accurate focus, lower light focus, exposure preview, and better information and controls. None of that makes my best pictures any better. It does give me more keepers out of every shoot and more of my best pictures. It also reduces my time on the property for real estate shoots. (For those, the DR reduces my processing time also, because I don't have to use brackets and HDR often)

When the stars align and everything is just right, my 6D images look as good as any camera from any year at any price. That doesn't happen as often as it does with my R. If you shoot action, the R6 will be just as much of an improvement. I don't, so I'll stay with the R for a few years. It has the same DR and high ISO capability as the 5D4. That has actually mattered on a number of shoots.

Well said, Eddie.

 

[gonetropo]

Thanks everyone for you insights, much appreciated! No question the R6 incorporates many, many features that make using it so much more accurate than the early 5d Mark II and IIIs, and definitely an upgrade from this standpoint. It also sounds like if upgrading, while handling and operational latitudes are greatly improved, I shouldn't necessarily expect a great deal of difference (maybe not a "Wow") in properly exposed base level ISO photos compared side by side. Still a great deal of good updated tech and features to consider in making that purchase decision.

 

[JackHa2006]

Comparing the 5D mark II to the R6 at base ISO 100, I see noise in scenes with the sky from the 5D mark II but I don't see from the R6.

--
https://www.instagram.com/JackHa2006/

 

[rrc1967]

I would appreciate anyone's comments about the actual quality difference they have seen in the photographic output from these two almost identically sized sensors.

they aren't even in the same realm. The R6 is lightyears better unless you never worried about latitude and always shot in good light. Properly exposed without needing to push shadows, you'll notice some differences but not as much.

 

[G Dickson]

I would appreciate anyone's comments about the actual quality difference they have seen in the photographic output from these two almost identically sized sensors. Excluding all of the advantages of mirrorless vs DSLR, ibis vs no in body stabilization, frames per second, high ISO performance, burst and write speeds, auto focus, eye tracking, new R lens capabilities vs EF lenses, etc, what improvements in the appearance of the photo files, Jpg or Raw, would be most noticeable?
best,
gonetropo
personal photos - https://www.instagram.com/duffhughes/

In a nutshell it has the same 'Canon colour' as the 5D3 but without the downside of absolutely awful shadow recovery and the highlights recover better too.

There's other things but that's the gist of it.

Other than the 5DSr it's Canon's best sensor to date since the 5D3 (when it comes to the colour).

Just to put it in here while I can, no, the R5's sensor isn't as good on balance.

Out of interest why do you state the R5's sensor is not as good on balance?

Genuine curiosity as an R6 owner...

 

[skyrunr]

I'm glad I got your sarcasm. But seriously, most of the time we shoot with somewhat decent light. Not to mention auxiliary lighting being so much more affordable and flexible now days! Spending twice as much on a body doesn't make that much sense to me as buying better glass and lighting gear. Often with half the budget!

Yes, there are situations where that sensor is needed and justified, but maybe more so if they generate some revenue, earn their livelihood, and can write off their photography expenses.

--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
'Out of the darkness there must come out the light.' Bob Marley

 

[tkbslc]

New sensor improvements are always at the extremes of what the old sensor can do.

R6 sensor shows a significant benefit when you get to very high ISO or when trying to push or pull shadows and highlight. There's a fairly large overlap where they output will look virtually identical, though.

 

[gonetropo]

Comparing the 5D mark II to the R6 at base ISO 100, I see noise in scenes with the sky from the 5D mark II but I don't see from the R6.

Thank you, I appreciate this objective observation!

 

[gonetropo]

I'm glad I got your sarcasm. But seriously, most of the time we shoot with somewhat decent light. Not to mention auxiliary lighting being so much more affordable and flexible now days! Spending twice as much on a body doesn't make that much sense to me as buying better glass and lighting gear. Often with half the budget!

Yes, there are situations where that sensor is needed and justified, but maybe more so if they generate some revenue, earn their livelihood, and can write off their photography expenses.

I tend to agree with you about lighting. Particularly in studio or a location with lighting equipment can be used and controlled, I would expect the resulting files to look about the same. Particularly if shooting tethered, where the 5D MK II's low resolution back lcd doesn't have to be solely relied on for checking fine focus / exposure. Still in a general all around use, I can guess that the improvements of the R6 in auto focus, and exposure latitude , could result in more reliability and keepers.


best,
gonetropo
personal photos - https://www.instagram.com/duffhughes/

 

[9VIII]

I still use the 5DMkII as the baseline for color reproduction when I'm looking at the Studio Scene tool.

I know it's oversaturated but it looks great.

 

[skyrunr]

Coming from a Nikon, I'm surprisingly happy with my customized Fine Detail and "white corrected WB" Canon profile so far. I have LR Classic setup for auto-import and have to spend some time on a custom profile with lens correction. I'm not sure why it isn't automatic. I just need more than the 3 days to work on it and got busy with work. It has been warmer, but very windy so I haven't really been able to shoot.

I jump over to "auto" and snap a few photos and they are awfully red just like my D750. My D500 could handle "auto" better. The 1-2X RF converter certainly has me excited for use with the RF70-200f4!

 

[Chris Giles]

I would appreciate anyone's comments about the actual quality difference they have seen in the photographic output from these two almost identically sized sensors. Excluding all of the advantages of mirrorless vs DSLR, ibis vs no in body stabilization, frames per second, high ISO performance, burst and write speeds, auto focus, eye tracking, new R lens capabilities vs EF lenses, etc, what improvements in the appearance of the photo files, Jpg or Raw, would be most noticeable?
best,
gonetropo
personal photos - https://www.instagram.com/duffhughes/

In a nutshell it has the same 'Canon colour' as the 5D3 but without the downside of absolutely awful shadow recovery and the highlights recover better too.

There's other things but that's the gist of it.

Other than the 5DSr it's Canon's best sensor to date since the 5D3 (when it comes to the colour).

Just to put it in here while I can, no, the R5's sensor isn't as good on balance.

Out of interest why do you state the R5's sensor is not as good on balance?

Genuine curiosity as an R6 owner...

I've got both and when pushed outside of it's range the R5 falls over.

So if you shoot HIgh Iso (12800) there's a big drop off in editing flexibility in both the shadows and highlights. Not just a bit, but a stark difference.

As an example. Take a picture of a black chair with a monitor somewhere else in the room and push the exposure or shadows or both. On the R5 the chair shows banding and turns blue. With the R6 the colour doesn't change, there's no banding.

With the monitor the highlight recovery on the R6 is miles better and the transition between light and dark is smoother by a lot.

Obviously these are at the limits of the camera so the R5 can be forgiven somewhat, but this is an obvious downside to having smaller pixels on the R5. Something that if you shoot say, weddings, you'll prefer the flexibility of the r6.

If you're a landscape shooter and want 33% bigger pictures you won't notice it.

Otherwise they're the same camera. I do prefer the colours of the R6 but to be fair to the R5 I've not been able to really shoot in it earnest.

 

[G Dickson]

I would appreciate anyone's comments about the actual quality difference they have seen in the photographic output from these two almost identically sized sensors. Excluding all of the advantages of mirrorless vs DSLR, ibis vs no in body stabilization, frames per second, high ISO performance, burst and write speeds, auto focus, eye tracking, new R lens capabilities vs EF lenses, etc, what improvements in the appearance of the photo files, Jpg or Raw, would be most noticeable?
best,
gonetropo
personal photos - https://www.instagram.com/duffhughes/

In a nutshell it has the same 'Canon colour' as the 5D3 but without the downside of absolutely awful shadow recovery and the highlights recover better too.

There's other things but that's the gist of it.

Other than the 5DSr it's Canon's best sensor to date since the 5D3 (when it comes to the colour).

Just to put it in here while I can, no, the R5's sensor isn't as good on balance.

Out of interest why do you state the R5's sensor is not as good on balance?

Genuine curiosity as an R6 owner...

I've got both and when pushed outside of it's range the R5 falls over.

So if you shoot HIgh Iso (12800) there's a big drop off in editing flexibility in both the shadows and highlights. Not just a bit, but a stark difference.

As an example. Take a picture of a black chair with a monitor somewhere else in the room and push the exposure or shadows or both. On the R5 the chair shows banding and turns blue. With the R6 the colour doesn't change, there's no banding.

With the monitor the highlight recovery on the R6 is miles better and the transition between light and dark is smoother by a lot.

Obviously these are at the limits of the camera so the R5 can be forgiven somewhat, but this is an obvious downside to having smaller pixels on the R5. Something that if you shoot say, weddings, you'll prefer the flexibility of the r6.

If you're a landscape shooter and want 33% bigger pictures you won't notice it.

Otherwise they're the same camera. I do prefer the colours of the R6 but to be fair to the R5 I've not been able to really shoot in it earnest.

Thanks very much for your observations. Very interesting. So far (only 3 days into owning it) the R6 really impresses me with shadow recovery.