Is 20MP enough? Wrapping my own head around R/P (or R5) vs R6

[RLight]

The Nikon Z folks have the same corundum, as do the Sony folks...

45MP or 24MP?

Except for us, it's 45MP or 20MP?

The answer however, is the same...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64123484

Likewise, I'll quote the 1DX III's Snapshot Asia article itself...

"Higher: Image quality, processing power

Taking imaging to the next level

The 20.1 effective megapixel resolution of the EOS-1D X Mark III might not seem like much of a difference from its predecessor, but behind that number lies enormous improvements to image quality brought about by incorporating various new technologies and features. This resolution was selected to achieve balance with the numerous advancements to specifications that we have previously described.

Know this: 20.1 megapixels is sufficient to create an A3-size print."

https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/art...os-1d-x-mark-iii-1-still-shooting-performance

Lastly, have a peek at the sample gallery for the 1DX Mark III...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1-d-x-iii-review/11

If you're perfectly happy with the images out of the 1DX III gallery, and don't crop frequently, it's a "winner".

The trouble becomes either if you crop, or print larger than A3 regularly.

If however it's going straight to social media, printed on A3 or smaller, viewed on even a 4K TV or high end 5K displays, you're simply not going to see the difference. But, your computer (if you're post processing RAWs), hard drive space and SD cards will all thank you.

As Ken Rockwell says, I don't have the exact quote, but essentially your shooting technique, particularly shooting at a higher shutter, is going to make a bigger difference in sharpness than most gear will. Likewise, the R6's improvements with SOOC output (JPEG engine improved and HEIF support added), autofocus and increased FPS for catching the fleeting moment, ISO handling, Dynamic Range, outweigh the loss of MP vs the R or RP in my book, unless you're a landscape only user shooting base ISO most of the time and have an R, not an RP (as the Dynamic range on the RP makes it less suitable for landscapes).

Trust me, I had to wrap my head around this last night; is it worth $1500 for 8K video and 45MP? I very rarely crop and the only time I do is when I'm shooting something far away with the wrong lens; not common.

Likewise, having owned the M6 Mark II with it's 14FPS and more advanced AF, I can say I really, really wish my EOS R with the RF 28-70 F/2L had more FPS, and had better AF. And somewhat frequently I wish my EOS R had just a little more ISO performance (noise), and likewise I wish it had more dynamic range. And then I got spoiled on uncropped 4K on the M6 Mark II.

The R6 is not to be underestimated at a mere 20MP. Wasn't that long ago in the DSLR world we were shooting either 22MP (5DIII), 21MP (5D Mark II) and lets not forget the 1DX II and III are both 20MP, which never stopped pro sports photographers or other wedding / event pro's from shooting entire affairs with.

But, unlike the DSLR predecessors around 20MP of the past, it addresses key issues from it's DSLR brethren that were common place complaints during the 5D Mark III era:

Autofocus microadjustment is banished with DPAF

Autofocus with eye-AF is now introduced, and perfected in the R5/R6 making fleeting candid portraits a breeze and not so fleeting

IBIS, with in-lens IS combination banishes camera shake

Improved DR and ISO mean you can mess up on exposure and fix it later or shoot in even lower light with reduced noise

4K uncropped video without rolling shutter, at 60 frames at that

12FPS with 20 in live view

Silent shutter

Touch and drag AF

AWB improvements

JPEG Engine, noise reduction, sharpness improvements

.

Where Canon distinguishes itself from it's mirrorless competitors:

Handling

SOOC / RAW Color reproduction

DPAF in video

Combination IBIS+Lens IS (except Panasonic)

-6.5EV without the camera stopping down ala Sony

Higher end RF glass access

(Inexpensive) EF glass access via adapter with native AF response in both stills and video (unlike Sony which is 90% stills but only 50% in video via metabones) AND combination IS support

HEIF Support

4K/60 support (vs competiting mid-range FF MILCs)

.

Really when you think about it, the only penalty the R6 has vs it's Z6 and A7 III counterparts is 4MP. Otherwise, it's beating them with glass, handling, colors, video, FPS, or combination IS.

.

Likewise, unless you're planning on viewing your footage on a greater than 5K screen (rare), printing on larger than A3 (rare), or crop frequently (only you know), than the extra MP go to waste, well unless you're a studio shooter (you know who you are) and need every last ounce of contrast and tones when downsampled for higher end paid gigs.

$1500 isn't chump change for most of us.

And neither is a 50MB RAW (24MP output) vs 100MB RAW (45MP output) for our computers.

I hope this helps someone other than me who is struggling to understand the R6 and why it makes sense for most of us R and RP owners over an R5. It's as DPR says, the R5 for the masses...

 

[KLO82]

From what I understand, for large prints (larger than 19"x13") 200 PPI is very acceptable, as those prints will be viewed from a larger distance. And the strict 300 PPI standard is mostly for smaller (around A5) prints. The larger the print, the less the acceptable PPI.

Here is screenshot from 1DX Mark II user manual:



Here they are saying that 8.9 MP is enough for A3 sized prints, and 20 MP is enough for A2. If you regularly print A3, that would mean you can crop (up to) 56% of the total pixels (which means you will be using only 44% of the sensor area) and still be able to print A3. Personally I never shoot in a way where I have to waste half of the sensor by cropping, as with cropping you are essentially using a smaller sensor and hence will get reduced DR, higher noise etc.

You can think about it in this way, if you have enough pixels to print A2, you can crop out half of the total pixels and still get enough pixels for A3 as an A2 paper has twice the area of an A3 paper. So if 20 MP is enough for A2 print (as shown in the manual), you really should not worry about cropping and printing A3.

 

[MAC]

From what I understand, for large prints (larger than 19"x13") 200 PPI is very acceptable, as those prints will be viewed from a larger distance. And the strict 300 PPI standard is mostly for smaller (around A5) prints. The larger the print, the less the acceptable PPI.

Here is screenshot from 1DX Mark II user manual:



Here they are saying that 8.9 MP is enough for A3 sized prints, and 20 MP is enough for A2. If you regularly print A3, that would mean you can crop (up to) 56% of the total pixels (which means you will be using only 44% of the sensor area) and still be able to print A3. Personally I never shoot in a way where I have to waste half of the sensor by cropping, as with cropping you are essentially using a smaller sensor and hence will get reduced DR, higher noise etc.

You can think about it in this way, if you have enough pixels to print A2, you can crop out half of the total pixels and still get enough pixels for A3 as an A2 paper has twice the area of an A3 paper. So if 20 MP is enough for A2 print (as shown in the manual), you really should not worry about cropping and printing A3.

true

and my Stair Interpolation Action does vey well at 1.5 times

 

[MAC]

me thinks you are missing R5's reach and cropping power and beautiful color saturation

 

[Alastair Norcross]

From what I understand, for large prints (larger than 19"x13") 200 PPI is very acceptable, as those prints will be viewed from a larger distance. And the strict 300 PPI standard is mostly for smaller (around A5) prints. The larger the print, the less the acceptable PPI.

Here is screenshot from 1DX Mark II user manual:



Here they are saying that 8.9 MP is enough for A3 sized prints, and 20 MP is enough for A2. If you regularly print A3, that would mean you can crop (up to) 56% of the total pixels (which means you will be using only 44% of the sensor area) and still be able to print A3. Personally I never shoot in a way where I have to waste half of the sensor by cropping, as with cropping you are essentially using a smaller sensor and hence will get reduced DR, higher noise etc.

You can think about it in this way, if you have enough pixels to print A2, you can crop out half of the total pixels and still get enough pixels for A3 as an A2 paper has twice the area of an A3 paper. So if 20 MP is enough for A2 print (as shown in the manual), you really should not worry about cropping and printing A3.

I have several framed 30" X 20" poster prints from the original 6.3MP Digital Rebel on my wall. They still look great.

--
As the length of a thread approaches 150, the probability that someone will make the obvious "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" remark approaches 1.
Alastair

anorcross

Keen hobbyist since teaching myself film photography as a teenager in the 70s, using manual SLRs and black and white film. Love photographing people and animals.

anorcross.smugmug.com

Equipment in profile

 

[RLight]

me thinks you are missing R5's reach and cropping power and beautiful color saturation

Nope.

Hardly, I'd rather have another .5 EV of low light, half the file sizes, $1500 in my wallet, (slightly) better ISO handling, and 50g savings in weight with a traditional PASM dial. Never cared for the new menu dial, cumbersome, even after 2 years with it.

The RP grip and R's EVF resolution are more than enough for my needs. But I'm sure a 5.76M would be better. The 1.62M and 3.0 in drop on the rear LCD though hurts a bit.

I'm not sweating it, trust me.

But like alot of folks around here, you have to wrap your head around what those extra megapixels actually mean. And they're not worthless, it does amount to a small increase in detail and color, yes, even uncropped.

But at what cost? And how much difference?

I shot the 5D III without ever complaining about resolution (but at the time we didn't have anything better either), and it was infrequent I needed more, and the colors were fine then, in fact better, which I noticed the 1DX III sensor is a return to some of those roots in terms of CFA response, even though it isn't a complete return to the legacy red-bias, and that actually is a good thing (for video) in hindsight.

If I had all the money in the world, I'd buy both, and shoot each for it's best use.

However, for my use case, it's in fact so close, even if I had the money to buy both without blinking, I know myself, I'd end up picking up one more than the other and it's not clear cut; ISO benefit vs resolution, weight savings vs better EVF, grip and LCD. It's honestly a coin toss in which case I'd rather save my pennies personally as that's how close that trade is.

.

Now, getting my wife on board for spending 2.5K? That, is the real battle for a hobby. Ha!

Btw, should the R5 have lesser (even slightly) color rendition than the R6? Then it's a total no brainer. It may be it's very slightly lesser, even though I suspect it's nearly identical.

With the R6 now being a known good, that's enough for me.

 

[RDM5546]

me thinks you are missing R5's reach and cropping power and beautiful color saturation

Nope.

Hardly, I'd rather have another .5 EV of low light, half the file sizes, $1500 in my wallet, (slightly) better ISO handling, and 50g savings in weight with a traditional PASM dial. Never cared for the new menu dial, cumbersome, even after 2 years with it.

The RP grip and R's EVF resolution are more than enough for my needs. But I'm sure a 5.76M would be better. The 1.62M and 3.0 in drop on the rear LCD though hurts a bit.

I'm not sweating it, trust me.

But like alot of folks around here, you have to wrap your head around what those extra megapixels actually mean. And they're not worthless, it does amount to a small increase in detail and color, yes, even uncropped.

But at what cost? And how much difference?

I shot the 5D III without ever complaining about resolution (but at the time we didn't have anything better either), and it was infrequent I needed more, and the colors were fine then, in fact better, which I noticed the 1DX III sensor is a return to some of those roots in terms of CFA response, even though it isn't a complete return to the legacy red-bias, and that actually is a good thing (for video) in hindsight.

If I had all the money in the world, I'd buy both, and shoot each for it's best use.

However, for my use case, it's in fact so close, even if I had the money to buy both without blinking, I know myself, I'd end up picking up one more than the other and it's not clear cut; ISO benefit vs resolution, weight savings vs better EVF, grip and LCD. It's honestly a coin toss in which case I'd rather save my pennies personally as that's how close that trade is.

.

Now, getting my wife on board for spending 2.5K? That, is the real battle for a hobby. Ha!

Btw, should the R5 have lesser (even slightly) color rendition than the R6? Then it's a total no brainer. It may be it's very slightly lesser, even though I suspect it's nearly identical.

With the R6 now being a known good, that's enough for me.

I think that both are really great cameras that will work well with my 15-35mm and 24-70mm core lenses. The IBIS even works to improve them as well as the 24-240mm that I use a lot. Since I got these RF lenses I use the EOS R much more than DSLRs despite it's limitations.

I believe the R6 is better than the R5 at some important things like low light. Both can make excellent images. I have zero need for 8K video that I know of but I think it will be significant in support R5 sales to other younger shooters so Canon was smart in doing this.

However, I think the R5 likely can replace both my 7D Mk II and 5D Mk IV. The R5 offers more headroom for cropping and has a high resoution EVF and both of those features I use and care about a lot. For me that is a killer feature and the compatibility in user interface with the R is icing on the cake.

Now that see the actual factual specs going buy the R5 with the expectation of selling my DLSRs when I use the 120hz EVF awesome EVF. Selling the DLSRs after I confirm the action shooting strengths I expect in the EOS R will help pay the premium required for the more getting the cropping power of R5 images said in todays talks to be higher resolution than the 5D MKiv R.

The R6 EVF is probably faster and free of the limiitng speed artifacts of the EOS R making the R6 really great for action. For me though I do really like the resolution/cropping power of the R5 display and sensor so that is way I will go. Better cropping power can save me a fortune in not having to buy any more heavy long telephoto primes in the future.

 

[RLight]

me thinks you are missing R5's reach and cropping power and beautiful color saturation

Nope.

Hardly, I'd rather have another .5 EV of low light, half the file sizes, $1500 in my wallet, (slightly) better ISO handling, and 50g savings in weight with a traditional PASM dial. Never cared for the new menu dial, cumbersome, even after 2 years with it.

The RP grip and R's EVF resolution are more than enough for my needs. But I'm sure a 5.76M would be better. The 1.62M and 3.0 in drop on the rear LCD though hurts a bit.

I'm not sweating it, trust me.

But like alot of folks around here, you have to wrap your head around what those extra megapixels actually mean. And they're not worthless, it does amount to a small increase in detail and color, yes, even uncropped.

But at what cost? And how much difference?

I shot the 5D III without ever complaining about resolution (but at the time we didn't have anything better either), and it was infrequent I needed more, and the colors were fine then, in fact better, which I noticed the 1DX III sensor is a return to some of those roots in terms of CFA response, even though it isn't a complete return to the legacy red-bias, and that actually is a good thing (for video) in hindsight.

If I had all the money in the world, I'd buy both, and shoot each for it's best use.

However, for my use case, it's in fact so close, even if I had the money to buy both without blinking, I know myself, I'd end up picking up one more than the other and it's not clear cut; ISO benefit vs resolution, weight savings vs better EVF, grip and LCD. It's honestly a coin toss in which case I'd rather save my pennies personally as that's how close that trade is.

.

Now, getting my wife on board for spending 2.5K? That, is the real battle for a hobby. Ha!

Btw, should the R5 have lesser (even slightly) color rendition than the R6? Then it's a total no brainer. It may be it's very slightly lesser, even though I suspect it's nearly identical.

With the R6 now being a known good, that's enough for me.

I think that both are really great cameras that will work well with my 15-35mm and 24-70mm core lenses. The IBIS even works to improve them as well as the 24-240mm that I use a lot. Since I got these RF lenses I use the EOS R much more than DSLRs despite it's limitations.

I believe the R6 is better than the R5 at some important things like low light. Both can make excellent images. I have zero need for 8K video that I know of but I think it will be significant in support R5 sales to other younger shooters so Canon was smart in doing this.

However, I think the R5 likely can replace both my 7D Mk II and 5D Mk IV. The R5 offers more headroom for cropping and has a high resoution EVF and both of those features I use and care about a lot. For me that is a killer feature and the compatibility in user interface with the R is icing on the cake.

Now that see the actual factual specs going buy the R5 with the expectation of selling my DLSRs when I use the 120hz EVF awesome EVF. Selling the DLSRs after I confirm the action shooting strengths I expect in the EOS R will help pay the premium required for the more getting the cropping power of R5 images said in todays talks to be higher resolution than the 5D MKiv R.

The R6 EVF is probably faster and free of the limiitng speed artifacts of the EOS R making the R6 really great for action. For me though I do really like the resolution/cropping power of the R5 display and sensor so that is way I will go. Better cropping power can save me a fortune in not having to buy any more heavy long telephoto primes in the future.

You're saying key words here:

Cropping

Replace 7DII and 5D IV

8K

.

The R5 is a wildlife champ with it's crop-ability. Zero questions.

These are all good reasons to go for the R5, and it is a superb option.

I'm simply making the point that will get lost: The R6 is better for general photography/videography, especially for the bang for buck much as the A7 III and Z6 does.

 

[jwilliams]

If I had all the money in the world, I'd buy both, and shoot each for it's best use.

Maybe Canon can make a package deal. They do it all the time with camera and lens, why not 2 cameras to cover all use cases? Give us a discount Canon and we'll buy both!

It seems like those 2 together would be ideal except I'd still want one small as possible body. Maybe an RP MKII with the R5 sensor and an R5? Sounds like a nice combo.

 

[RLight]

If I had all the money in the world, I'd buy both, and shoot each for it's best use.

Maybe Canon can make a package deal. They do it all the time with camera and lens, why not 2 cameras to cover all use cases? Give us a discount Canon and we'll buy both!

It seems like those 2 together would be ideal except I'd still want one small as possible body. Maybe an RP MKII with the R5 sensor and an R5? Sounds like a nice combo.

Sorta like buying two Teslas and getting 10% off?

Man that's a good problem to have, if you can afford the first one. Sheesh.

 

[Daniel L]

Looking back all the images i have taken in the past, i wish they are all in 50MP. Period.

 

[jwilliams]

If I had all the money in the world, I'd buy both, and shoot each for it's best use.

Maybe Canon can make a package deal. They do it all the time with camera and lens, why not 2 cameras to cover all use cases? Give us a discount Canon and we'll buy both!

It seems like those 2 together would be ideal except I'd still want one small as possible body. Maybe an RP MKII with the R5 sensor and an R5? Sounds like a nice combo.

Sorta like buying two Teslas and getting 10% off?

Man that's a good problem to have, if you can afford the first one. Sheesh.

Just dreaming. I like the 2 Tesla idea also.

 

[RLight]

Looking back all the images i have taken in the past, i wish they are all in 50MP. Period.

Well, the R5 is for that

I'm not knocking the R5, I'm willing to be lunch folks like Dave will eventually bite.

However, there are lots of things I wish too:

Wish I could own every RF lens

Wish I could own both the R5 and R6

Short list, but that's alot of cash.

It does come down to a dollar figure.

But moreover, if you're not using the megapixels, it's wasted cash. Especially when in fact there's things the R6 does better than the R5 by nature of it being less pixel dense (ISO handling, low light AF), less storage and compute requirements, and lighter (due to lesser build).

 

[sportyaccordy]

20MP = more than 2x my 4K monitor, and I have some sub 300DPI prints up. So it's fine I definitely don't need 45MP; I couldn't wait to get rid of my A7R2.

 

[KrisAK]

I once tried upgrading from the 40D (10MP) to the Nikon D5100 (16MP) because I fell for the line that "it's all about the sensor." Well, the ergonomics were terrible, so I sent it back.

But the real shock was just how little difference 60% more resolution actually made. At least, for my style of shooting (I hate post and crop only minimally.)

So for the moment, at least, I think I'd be willing to trade 10MP from the R for all the improvements in the R6.

 

[RDM5546]

me thinks you are missing R5's reach and cropping power and beautiful color saturation

Nope.

Hardly, I'd rather have another .5 EV of low light, half the file sizes, $1500 in my wallet, (slightly) better ISO handling, and 50g savings in weight with a traditional PASM dial. Never cared for the new menu dial, cumbersome, even after 2 years with it.

The RP grip and R's EVF resolution are more than enough for my needs. But I'm sure a 5.76M would be better. The 1.62M and 3.0 in drop on the rear LCD though hurts a bit.

I'm not sweating it, trust me.

But like alot of folks around here, you have to wrap your head around what those extra megapixels actually mean. And they're not worthless, it does amount to a small increase in detail and color, yes, even uncropped.

But at what cost? And how much difference?

I shot the 5D III without ever complaining about resolution (but at the time we didn't have anything better either), and it was infrequent I needed more, and the colors were fine then, in fact better, which I noticed the 1DX III sensor is a return to some of those roots in terms of CFA response, even though it isn't a complete return to the legacy red-bias, and that actually is a good thing (for video) in hindsight.

If I had all the money in the world, I'd buy both, and shoot each for it's best use.

However, for my use case, it's in fact so close, even if I had the money to buy both without blinking, I know myself, I'd end up picking up one more than the other and it's not clear cut; ISO benefit vs resolution, weight savings vs better EVF, grip and LCD. It's honestly a coin toss in which case I'd rather save my pennies personally as that's how close that trade is.

.

Now, getting my wife on board for spending 2.5K? That, is the real battle for a hobby. Ha!

Btw, should the R5 have lesser (even slightly) color rendition than the R6? Then it's a total no brainer. It may be it's very slightly lesser, even though I suspect it's nearly identical.

With the R6 now being a known good, that's enough for me.

I think that both are really great cameras that will work well with my 15-35mm and 24-70mm core lenses. The IBIS even works to improve them as well as the 24-240mm that I use a lot. Since I got these RF lenses I use the EOS R much more than DSLRs despite it's limitations.

I believe the R6 is better than the R5 at some important things like low light. Both can make excellent images. I have zero need for 8K video that I know of but I think it will be significant in support R5 sales to other younger shooters so Canon was smart in doing this.

However, I think the R5 likely can replace both my 7D Mk II and 5D Mk IV. The R5 offers more headroom for cropping and has a high resoution EVF and both of those features I use and care about a lot. For me that is a killer feature and the compatibility in user interface with the R is icing on the cake.

Now that see the actual factual specs going buy the R5 with the expectation of selling my DLSRs when I use the 120hz EVF awesome EVF. Selling the DLSRs after I confirm the action shooting strengths I expect in the EOS R will help pay the premium required for the more getting the cropping power of R5 images said in todays talks to be higher resolution than the 5D MKiv R.

The R6 EVF is probably faster and free of the limiitng speed artifacts of the EOS R making the R6 really great for action. For me though I do really like the resolution/cropping power of the R5 display and sensor so that is way I will go. Better cropping power can save me a fortune in not having to buy any more heavy long telephoto primes in the future.

You're saying key words here:

Cropping

Replace 7DII and 5D IV

8K

.

The R5 is a wildlife champ with it's crop-ability. Zero questions.

These are all good reasons to go for the R5, and it is a superb option.

I'm simply making the point that will get lost: The R6 is better for general photography/videography, especially for the bang for buck much as the A7 III and Z6 does.

I think you are absolutely right.

I suspect that the R6 is in a sweetspot of a bigger part of the professional camera market than the R5. The R6 is a more affordable and great camera maximizing bang for buck particularly for advanced mainstream sports and action user and video features.

 

[Guillermo Shashte]

The Nikon Z folks have the same corundum, as do the Sony folks...

45MP or 24MP?

Except for us, it's 45MP or 20MP?

The answer however, is the same...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64123484

Likewise, I'll quote the 1DX III's Snapshot Asia article itself...

"Higher: Image quality, processing power

Taking imaging to the next level

The 20.1 effective megapixel resolution of the EOS-1D X Mark III might not seem like much of a difference from its predecessor, but behind that number lies enormous improvements to image quality brought about by incorporating various new technologies and features. This resolution was selected to achieve balance with the numerous advancements to specifications that we have previously described.

Know this: 20.1 megapixels is sufficient to create an A3-size print."

https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/art...os-1d-x-mark-iii-1-still-shooting-performance

Lastly, have a peek at the sample gallery for the 1DX Mark III...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1-d-x-iii-review/11

If you're perfectly happy with the images out of the 1DX III gallery, and don't crop frequently, it's a "winner".

The trouble becomes either if you crop, or print larger than A3 regularly.

If however it's going straight to social media, printed on A3 or smaller, viewed on even a 4K TV or high end 5K displays, you're simply not going to see the difference. But, your computer (if you're post processing RAWs), hard drive space and SD cards will all thank you.

As Ken Rockwell says, I don't have the exact quote, but essentially your shooting technique, particularly shooting at a higher shutter, is going to make a bigger difference in sharpness than most gear will. Likewise, the R6's improvements with SOOC output (JPEG engine improved and HEIF support added), autofocus and increased FPS for catching the fleeting moment, ISO handling, Dynamic Range, outweigh the loss of MP vs the R or RP in my book, unless you're a landscape only user shooting base ISO most of the time and have an R, not an RP (as the Dynamic range on the RP makes it less suitable for landscapes).

Trust me, I had to wrap my head around this last night; is it worth $1500 for 8K video and 45MP? I very rarely crop and the only time I do is when I'm shooting something far away with the wrong lens; not common.

Likewise, having owned the M6 Mark II with it's 14FPS and more advanced AF, I can say I really, really wish my EOS R with the RF 28-70 F/2L had more FPS, and had better AF. And somewhat frequently I wish my EOS R had just a little more ISO performance (noise), and likewise I wish it had more dynamic range. And then I got spoiled on uncropped 4K on the M6 Mark II.

The R6 is not to be underestimated at a mere 20MP. Wasn't that long ago in the DSLR world we were shooting either 22MP (5DIII), 21MP (5D Mark II) and lets not forget the 1DX II and III are both 20MP, which never stopped pro sports photographers or other wedding / event pro's from shooting entire affairs with.

But, unlike the DSLR predecessors around 20MP of the past, it addresses key issues from it's DSLR brethren that were common place complaints during the 5D Mark III era:

Autofocus microadjustment is banished with DPAF

Autofocus with eye-AF is now introduced, and perfected in the R5/R6 making fleeting candid portraits a breeze and not so fleeting

IBIS, with in-lens IS combination banishes camera shake

Improved DR and ISO mean you can mess up on exposure and fix it later or shoot in even lower light with reduced noise

4K uncropped video without rolling shutter, at 60 frames at that

12FPS with 20 in live view

Silent shutter

Touch and drag AF

AWB improvements

JPEG Engine, noise reduction, sharpness improvements

.

Where Canon distinguishes itself from it's mirrorless competitors:

Handling

SOOC / RAW Color reproduction

DPAF in video

Combination IBIS+Lens IS (except Panasonic)

-6.5EV without the camera stopping down ala Sony

Higher end RF glass access

(Inexpensive) EF glass access via adapter with native AF response in both stills and video (unlike Sony which is 90% stills but only 50% in video via metabones) AND combination IS support

HEIF Support

4K/60 support (vs competiting mid-range FF MILCs)

.

Really when you think about it, the only penalty the R6 has vs it's Z6 and A7 III counterparts is 4MP. Otherwise, it's beating them with glass, handling, colors, video, FPS, or combination IS.

.

Likewise, unless you're planning on viewing your footage on a greater than 5K screen (rare), printing on larger than A3 (rare), or crop frequently (only you know), than the extra MP go to waste, well unless you're a studio shooter (you know who you are) and need every last ounce of contrast and tones when downsampled for higher end paid gigs.

$1500 isn't chump change for most of us.

And neither is a 50MB RAW (24MP output) vs 100MB RAW (45MP output) for our computers.

I hope this helps someone other than me who is struggling to understand the R6 and why it makes sense for most of us R and RP owners over an R5. It's as DPR says, the R5 for the masses...

Get whatever your heart desires but there is a difference between need and want.

People who need always overcome limitations:

20 Years ago:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/556331

Canon EOS-D30 Review:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30

--
GS

 

[walter g1]

Is 20MP enough?
That's the real question isn't it.
The answer is it depends.

I haven't checked but I assume this is still a FSI sensor. If so and you shoot alot of manual focus legacy glass like I do, then the answer is probably no, if your looking for best resolution.
The old Sony A7Rii with 45mp BSI sensor will easily beat it.
As far as that goes, the A7Rii should beat the R5 for adapted lenses also. Because BSI versus FSI.
Unfortunately it will most likely be awhile before we find out.

 

[Lord Powershoter]

Imo this "viewing distance argument" is flawed. Yes, it is true in principle that you basically only need 12mp (or less) if the viewing distance is large. But have you ever been to a large format photo exhibition? People are not standing 10 feet away, looking at those huge prints - what would be the point? No, they are going close, they are exploring all the great detail. It's like a big painting, that invites you to get lost in it for minutes.

For a niche camera like the 1D series, the 20MP make sense and are "enough" (no reason not to go higher in the future, when processing times are as short) but the R6 is a do-it-all camera for the enthusiast. It really should have had more MP.

 

[Lord Powershoter]

If you ever have been to a large format photo exhibition, you would have seen that people love to explore the fine detail of large prints (the "viewing distance" argument is irrelevant then). And starting at around A3 you will see significantly better detail of e.g. 45mp vs 24mp. A do-it-all camera like the R6 absolutely should have had more mp and I don't find it future proof whatsoever.