The R6 does not share the same sensor as the 1DX III

[Iliah Borg]

"The R6 is built around a variant of the 20MP sensor originally seen in the EOS-1D X III. Canon doesn't specify the difference but there's noticeably no mention of the R6 using the expensive '16-point' anti-aliasing filter from the flagship camera, which is a likely distinction (we'd expect the R6's AA filter to be the more conventional type)."

I don't really care that it's the same actual sensor, personally my main hope for it is that it shares the same CFA as the 1DX III, because that really works for me (or would if I had one).

Canon always seem to be tweaking the CFA for who they perceive the target user to be. The previous R models seemed tweaked for landscape, while the 1DX tweaked for sports and fashion.

I hope the R6 keeps the CFA from the 1DX III, but we'll get a better idea as soon as DPR get the studio scene test up.

How do you know that that cfa works for you? How did you test it? Just curious.

Analysis of the colour swatches from the studio scene.

You can sometimes pick out some aspects directly from the scene image on DPR, but that may include some unknown processing artefacts so it's best to download the file and play around with it.

But as an example, look at the cyan here and note the noise on the 1DX III image compared to the others. This (is one thing that) suggests a CFA with different characteristics.



However, what has me most excited about the 1DX III sensor is how nicely the red is being captured.

When you look the raw default rendering (adobe) on DPR it has an interesting but dull copper tint, but when rendered using variety of styles, it quite effortlessly adopts a wide range of rich shades.



It's the reds on Canon sensors that historically give me the most trouble and the 1DX III raw looks seems like a lovely file to work with, so far. That's not something you can always say about the reds in the raw from some Canon sensors (I've use quite a number) (and it's not always red that's problematic).

I'm obviously not taking about every shot, most Canon cameras produce excellent images most of the time, it's when you have an image that requires some extra work, that when what's happening under the hood starts to surface, sometimes in bizarre ways.

It's really quite a minor point, until it's not, and then it's not.

The silent ingredient here is Adobe colour transform. I would trust DPP more in this regards.

Also, the light and the amount of flare can be different in the shots.

--

About LibRaw | LibRaw

www.libraw.org

 

[rrc1967]

Why no BSI Sensor?

BSI would be a help - not really for sensor efficiency which would be minor but for corner casting and vignetting. I would suspect that if they used BSI we'd see better lens test scores for vignetting from the RF lenses.

Canon has decided not to do BSI - the fabrication is more difficult than doing just a front side sensor.

However, if Canon decides to go stacked sensors, they must do BSI anyways - so I'm sure they are working on it.

I had a Canon mount samyang 14 2.8 that had a horrible color cast in the corners with my old a7r2, and it didn’t show it when I tested it with the eos R. The a7r2 is BSI, the eos R is not.

Sony's in general have a horrible color cast

but some of the M mount lenses color cast on the R that don't on newer Sony's as an example, and then there's vignetting.

 

[lightnchade]

"The R6 is built around a variant of the 20MP sensor originally seen in the EOS-1D X III. Canon doesn't specify the difference but there's noticeably no mention of the R6 using the expensive '16-point' anti-aliasing filter from the flagship camera, which is a likely distinction (we'd expect the R6's AA filter to be the more conventional type)."

I don't really care that it's the same actual sensor, personally my main hope for it is that it shares the same CFA as the 1DX III, because that really works for me (or would if I had one).

Canon always seem to be tweaking the CFA for who they perceive the target user to be. The previous R models seemed tweaked for landscape, while the 1DX tweaked for sports and fashion.

I hope the R6 keeps the CFA from the 1DX III, but we'll get a better idea as soon as DPR get the studio scene test up.

How do you know that that cfa works for you? How did you test it? Just curious.

Analysis of the colour swatches from the studio scene.

You can sometimes pick out some aspects directly from the scene image on DPR, but that may include some unknown processing artefacts so it's best to download the file and play around with it.

But as an example, look at the cyan here and note the noise on the 1DX III image compared to the others. This (is one thing that) suggests a CFA with different characteristics.



However, what has me most excited about the 1DX III sensor is how nicely the red is being captured.

When you look the raw default rendering (adobe) on DPR it has an interesting but dull copper tint, but when rendered using variety of styles, it quite effortlessly adopts a wide range of rich shades.



It's the reds on Canon sensors that historically give me the most trouble and the 1DX III raw looks seems like a lovely file to work with, so far. That's not something you can always say about the reds in the raw from some Canon sensors (I've use quite a number) (and it's not always red that's problematic).

I'm obviously not taking about every shot, most Canon cameras produce excellent images most of the time, it's when you have an image that requires some extra work, that when what's happening under the hood starts to surface, sometimes in bizarre ways.

It's really quite a minor point, until it's not, and then it's not.

The silent ingredient here is Adobe colour transform. I would trust DPP more in this regards.

Certainly in respect of the color, but it's easier access to the raw noise that's more interesting for the analysis to try and gain an insight to the CFA. The image of the cyan swatch just serves as a convenient visualisation of the noise for this post.

Also, the light and the amount of flare can be different in the shots.

The idea of the analysis is to identify noise variations across the different color swatches from the same shot, compared across the different models, which may be suggestive of different characteristics of the CFA. (whereas a difference in light would be indicated by a similar noise increase on all or many swatches)

For example, while the Cyan swatch shows more noise on the 1DX III, from the same shot, the blue swatch shows lower noise for the 1DX III but a little more on the R (which had the cleanest Cyan)

Again, the following is just a convenience to visualise the difference, and granted it's quite subtle and tricky to see on this one but the difference can be measured:



It used the be a lot easier to find this stuff out, back when Canon published white papers that explained not only the characteristics of the CFA but the process they went through in selecting them, including discussion with photographers about anticipated lighting scenarios and subjects to be photographed. But they seemed to have stopped including such details in more recent white papers. Perhaps they thought they were giving away too much of the secret saurce.

 

[juanmaasecas]

"The R6 is built around a variant of the 20MP sensor originally seen in the EOS-1D X III. Canon doesn't specify the difference but there's noticeably no mention of the R6 using the expensive '16-point' anti-aliasing filter from the flagship camera, which is a likely distinction (we'd expect the R6's AA filter to be the more conventional type)."

I don't really care that it's the same actual sensor, personally my main hope for it is that it shares the same CFA as the 1DX III, because that really works for me (or would if I had one).

Canon always seem to be tweaking the CFA for who they perceive the target user to be. The previous R models seemed tweaked for landscape, while the 1DX tweaked for sports and fashion.

I hope the R6 keeps the CFA from the 1DX III, but we'll get a better idea as soon as DPR get the studio scene test up.

How do you know that that cfa works for you? How did you test it? Just curious.

Analysis of the colour swatches from the studio scene.

You can sometimes pick out some aspects directly from the scene image on DPR, but that may include some unknown processing artefacts so it's best to download the file and play around with it.

But as an example, look at the cyan here and note the noise on the 1DX III image compared to the others. This (is one thing that) suggests a CFA with different characteristics.



However, what has me most excited about the 1DX III sensor is how nicely the red is being captured.

When you look the raw default rendering (adobe) on DPR it has an interesting but dull copper tint, but when rendered using variety of styles, it quite effortlessly adopts a wide range of rich shades.



It's the reds on Canon sensors that historically give me the most trouble and the 1DX III raw looks seems like a lovely file to work with, so far. That's not something you can always say about the reds in the raw from some Canon sensors (I've use quite a number) (and it's not always red that's problematic).

I'm obviously not taking about every shot, most Canon cameras produce excellent images most of the time, it's when you have an image that requires some extra work, that when what's happening under the hood starts to surface, sometimes in bizarre ways.

It's really quite a minor point, until it's not, and then it's not.

The silent ingredient here is Adobe colour transform. I would trust DPP more in this regards.

Certainly in respect of the color, but it's easier access to the raw noise that's more interesting for the analysis to try and gain an insight to the CFA. The image of the cyan swatch just serves as a convenient visualisation of the noise for this post.

Also, the light and the amount of flare can be different in the shots.

The idea of the analysis is to identify noise variations across the different color swatches from the same shot, compared across the different models, which may be suggestive of different characteristics of the CFA. (whereas a difference in light would be indicated by a similar noise increase on all or many swatches)

For example, while the Cyan swatch shows more noise on the 1DX III, from the same shot, the blue swatch shows lower noise for the 1DX III but a little more on the R (which had the cleanest Cyan)

Again, the following is just a convenience to visualise the difference, and granted it's quite subtle and tricky to see on this one but the difference can be measured:



It used the be a lot easier to find this stuff out, back when Canon published white papers that explained not only the characteristics of the CFA but the process they went through in selecting them, including discussion with photographers about anticipated lighting scenarios and subjects to be photographed. But they seemed to have stopped including such details in more recent white papers. Perhaps they thought they were giving away too much of the secret saurce.

The extra noise in the cyan patch reminds me to Sony sensors, Canon might be weakening further the CFA to improve the SNR...

The jpgs from the R6 and 1Dx III look really beautiful and elegant to me, but in raw the files might be getting harder to process if they look more like Sony.

the nature photos I’ve seen from the 1Dx are magnificent, but them I’ve seen posted some sports photos and I was not a fan of the skin tones at high iso, most probably it was the raw processing in Lightroom.
mine key point for me of Canon raws is the camera standard profile in Lightroom that we don’t have anymore, and Adobe profiles are generally not to my liking.
I tried to make a calibration profile using lumariver and the raw from dpreview (from the 1Dx) and the default matrix with no tweaks shows light skin twisting towards pink and dark skin towards warm, just like Sony sensors. With the EOS R, the light skin twists towards warm, which I find more pleasing.
so yes I think this CFA might be cooler and less typical Canon.
And interested to see more about the R5, because so far the jpg I’ve seen don’t look as “refined”.

irene rudnyk has a video shooting both cameras and to her taste the colors are improved over the eos R she says, and she perfectly matched both cameras in one picture, but actually looking at the rest of them, it seemed that consistently the R6 was producing nicer images, so yes, maybe the R6 files are easier to handle.

i will switch from Sony to Canon in the right time, and one of the most important factors for me is color, but also the IBIS.
If I see myself struggling in Lightroom as I do with Sony, I might go for the eos R because it has the camera standard profile that works nicely for me.

let’s see.

--

https://www.instagram.com/juanmaasecas2/

 

[Iliah Borg]

"The R6 is built around a variant of the 20MP sensor originally seen in the EOS-1D X III. Canon doesn't specify the difference but there's noticeably no mention of the R6 using the expensive '16-point' anti-aliasing filter from the flagship camera, which is a likely distinction (we'd expect the R6's AA filter to be the more conventional type)."

I don't really care that it's the same actual sensor, personally my main hope for it is that it shares the same CFA as the 1DX III, because that really works for me (or would if I had one).

Canon always seem to be tweaking the CFA for who they perceive the target user to be. The previous R models seemed tweaked for landscape, while the 1DX tweaked for sports and fashion.

I hope the R6 keeps the CFA from the 1DX III, but we'll get a better idea as soon as DPR get the studio scene test up.

How do you know that that cfa works for you? How did you test it? Just curious.

Analysis of the colour swatches from the studio scene.

You can sometimes pick out some aspects directly from the scene image on DPR, but that may include some unknown processing artefacts so it's best to download the file and play around with it.

But as an example, look at the cyan here and note the noise on the 1DX III image compared to the others. This (is one thing that) suggests a CFA with different characteristics.



However, what has me most excited about the 1DX III sensor is how nicely the red is being captured.

When you look the raw default rendering (adobe) on DPR it has an interesting but dull copper tint, but when rendered using variety of styles, it quite effortlessly adopts a wide range of rich shades.



It's the reds on Canon sensors that historically give me the most trouble and the 1DX III raw looks seems like a lovely file to work with, so far. That's not something you can always say about the reds in the raw from some Canon sensors (I've use quite a number) (and it's not always red that's problematic).

I'm obviously not taking about every shot, most Canon cameras produce excellent images most of the time, it's when you have an image that requires some extra work, that when what's happening under the hood starts to surface, sometimes in bizarre ways.

It's really quite a minor point, until it's not, and then it's not.

The silent ingredient here is Adobe colour transform. I would trust DPP more in this regards.

Certainly in respect of the color, but it's easier access to the raw noise that's more interesting for the analysis to try and gain an insight to the CFA.

I don't see how you plan to access noise in raw while looking at Adobe's rendition. Noise in raw is characterized by StdDev taken from raw data.

The image of the cyan swatch just serves as a convenient visualisation of the noise for this post.

What is convenient is not always accurate.

--

About LibRaw | LibRaw

www.libraw.org

 

[lightnchade]

"The R6 is built around a variant of the 20MP sensor originally seen in the EOS-1D X III. Canon doesn't specify the difference but there's noticeably no mention of the R6 using the expensive '16-point' anti-aliasing filter from the flagship camera, which is a likely distinction (we'd expect the R6's AA filter to be the more conventional type)."

I don't really care that it's the same actual sensor, personally my main hope for it is that it shares the same CFA as the 1DX III, because that really works for me (or would if I had one).

Canon always seem to be tweaking the CFA for who they perceive the target user to be. The previous R models seemed tweaked for landscape, while the 1DX tweaked for sports and fashion.

I hope the R6 keeps the CFA from the 1DX III, but we'll get a better idea as soon as DPR get the studio scene test up.

How do you know that that cfa works for you? How did you test it? Just curious.

Analysis of the colour swatches from the studio scene.

You can sometimes pick out some aspects directly from the scene image on DPR, but that may include some unknown processing artefacts so it's best to download the file and play around with it.

But as an example, look at the cyan here and note the noise on the 1DX III image compared to the others. This (is one thing that) suggests a CFA with different characteristics.



However, what has me most excited about the 1DX III sensor is how nicely the red is being captured.

When you look the raw default rendering (adobe) on DPR it has an interesting but dull copper tint, but when rendered using variety of styles, it quite effortlessly adopts a wide range of rich shades.



It's the reds on Canon sensors that historically give me the most trouble and the 1DX III raw looks seems like a lovely file to work with, so far. That's not something you can always say about the reds in the raw from some Canon sensors (I've use quite a number) (and it's not always red that's problematic).

I'm obviously not taking about every shot, most Canon cameras produce excellent images most of the time, it's when you have an image that requires some extra work, that when what's happening under the hood starts to surface, sometimes in bizarre ways.

It's really quite a minor point, until it's not, and then it's not.

The silent ingredient here is Adobe colour transform. I would trust DPP more in this regards.

Certainly in respect of the color, but it's easier access to the raw noise that's more interesting for the analysis to try and gain an insight to the CFA.

I don't see how you plan to access noise in raw while looking at Adobe's rendition. Noise in raw is characterized by StdDev taken from raw data.

Agreed, and I don't plan to, I'll use StdDev from analysis of the downloaded raw file.

I was just trying (and failing it seems) to give a visualisation of the process for the person who asked the question.

The image of the cyan swatch just serves as a convenient visualisation of the noise for this post.

What is convenient is not always accurate.

Agreed.

 

[lightnchade]

The extra noise in the cyan patch reminds me to Sony sensors, Canon might be weakening further the CFA to improve the SNR...

You should keep in mind Iliah's point below, that the studio scene is a conversion and not necessarily an accurate representation, it requires analysis of the raw data to get more accurate measurements.

I just used the image of the swatch as a visualisation of the process because the noise was so clearly visible, but that doesn't mean it's accurate. Perhaps it was the wrong thing to show, and a distribution graph would have been better, but I liked the idea of relating it back to the color swatch.

The jpgs from the R6 and 1Dx III look really beautiful and elegant to me, but in raw the files might be getting harder to process if they look more like Sony.

Perhaps it depends which Sony, but my A7 raws were nothing special either.

And I used Aperture rather than Lightroom, I'd always found Aperture to be the better processor (although increasingly lacking in edit features) but even in Aperture I was never impressed with the A7 raws.

It's hard to put my finger on why, but they just never really captured what I expected from the light.

A quick example.

I rode a motorbike down the the Bamboo Trail following the Mekong in Laos. Somehow I'd made it across all the wood and wire rickety makeshift bridges and reached my goal which was to get to the beautiful 4000 Islands just above the border with Cambodia.

One evening I'm enjoying a Gin & Tonic by the Mekong during golden hour, watching the activity on the river pass by.

There's an uprooted tree across the water and the golden light is reflecting beautiful bright gold, the same light that's illuminating some rusty flowers or dead foliage in the bright and lushly lit trees nearby, and brushing the leaves at the top of the tallest magnificently arched tree.

A small boat transporting some locals turns to head in my direction so I grab the A7 and snap a capture of the scene. That will make a nice memento of this lazy relaxed moment.

Later at the computer, the camera raw delivers me this:


4000 Islands, Laos - initial raw conversion

What nonsense is this, where did my light go!

I think I understand raw and know this is just the start, but still, I wasn't expecting to have to paint the damn thing.

After 15 minutes (or maybe it was 30) trying a number of techniques, I start losing interest and settle on this:


4000 Islands

It's not great but it will have to do, the poor locals faces are already way too orange and trying to get more gold just seems to mess up something else up and makes it look faker than it already does.

I have thousands of A7 raws from this amazing Mekong adventure but there's not more than half a dozen I'd show you if I was trying to sell the camera (which I already did now)

the nature photos I’ve seen from the 1Dx are magnificent, but them I’ve seen posted some sports photos and I was not a fan of the skin tones at high iso, most probably it was the raw processing in Lightroom.
mine key point for me of Canon raws is the camera standard profile in Lightroom that we don’t have anymore, and Adobe profiles are generally not to my liking.
I tried to make a calibration profile using lumariver and the raw from dpreview (from the 1Dx) and the default matrix with no tweaks shows light skin twisting towards pink and dark skin towards warm, just like Sony sensors. With the EOS R, the light skin twists towards warm, which I find more pleasing.
so yes I think this CFA might be cooler and less typical Canon.
And interested to see more about the R5, because so far the jpg I’ve seen don’t look as “refined”.

irene rudnyk has a video shooting both cameras and to her taste the colors are improved over the eos R she says, and she perfectly matched both cameras in one picture, but actually looking at the rest of them, it seemed that consistently the R6 was producing nicer images, so yes, maybe the R6 files are easier to handle.

i will switch from Sony to Canon in the right time, and one of the most important factors for me is color, but also the IBIS.
If I see myself struggling in Lightroom as I do with Sony, I might go for the eos R because it has the camera standard profile that works nicely for me.

let’s see.

It's an excellent point you raise, perhaps indirectly.

With libraries of perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of images, an App like Lightroom becomes a more integral part of the system. It becomes more compelling to use the same app for processing, to the point where if it doesn't handle the raws for a camera well, it may affect the buying decision.

I don't really know if there's a raw processor that would have been able to do better with that Sony image, I tried Adobe and also DarkTable, or if the issue is really with how the raw has been captured, but I know I'm definitely ready to return to Canon now they have committed to mirrorless. I'll make the decision which model when I start preparing for my next excursion.

 

[boldcolors]

irene rudnyk has a video shooting both cameras and to her taste the colors are improved over the eos R she says, and she perfectly matched both cameras in one picture, but actually looking at the rest of them, it seemed that consistently the R6 was producing nicer images, so yes, maybe the R6 files are easier to handle.

Wow, looking at the comparison with the original R in her video, there's a huge color improvement straight out of camera. Granted some may be due to the light and WB but overall this looks very promising. I never liked the color response from 5D4/R (the RP is slightly "better" though)

To me it looks Canon has gone back to a slightly more vivid approach with a tad more magenta/red bias which - in my book - is a good thing. Easier to dial in those "pleasing" skintones quicker...

Anyway, need to see more examples of course.

 

[sobrien]

irene rudnyk has a video shooting both cameras and to her taste the colors are improved over the eos R she says, and she perfectly matched both cameras in one picture, but actually looking at the rest of them, it seemed that consistently the R6 was producing nicer images, so yes, maybe the R6 files are easier to handle.

Wow, looking at the comparison with the original R in her video, there's a huge color improvement straight out of camera. Granted some may be due to the light and WB but overall this looks very promising. I never liked the color response from 5D4/R (the RP is slightly "better" though)

I thought that was such a bad comparison (light and WB differences like you say) to be almost suspiciously designed to show the new camera in a better light, literally and figuratively. Maybe it wasn’t by design but it seems really misleading. Plenty of people who mightn’t know better would look at the comparison and think: “Oh, the R takes really horrible looking portraits but they are beautiful on the R6”.

To me it looks Canon has gone back to a slightly more vivid approach with a tad more magenta/red bias which - in my book - is a good thing. Easier to dial in those "pleasing" skintones quicker...

Anyway, need to see more examples of course.

 

[boldcolors]

I thought that was such a bad comparison (light and WB differences like you say) to be almost suspiciously designed to show the new camera in a better light, literally and figuratively. Maybe it wasn’t by design but it seems really misleading. Plenty of people who mightn’t know better would look at the comparison and think: “Oh, the R takes really horrible looking portraits but they are beautiful on the R6”.

Yeah, I agree about the R portrait and WB. Should have been set correctly to better show the difference (or lack of difference)

But I think she's on to something anyway. Looking at the other examples from the R6 makes me believe that the output is different and to some extent "more pleasing" than the R. That is personal taste of course.

 

[juanmaasecas]

I thought that was such a bad comparison (light and WB differences like you say) to be almost suspiciously designed to show the new camera in a better light, literally and figuratively. Maybe it wasn’t by design but it seems really misleading. Plenty of people who mightn’t know better would look at the comparison and think: “Oh, the R takes really horrible looking portraits but they are beautiful on the R6”.

Yeah, I agree about the R portrait and WB. Should have been set correctly to better show the difference (or lack of difference)

But I think she's on to something anyway. Looking at the other examples from the R6 makes me believe that the output is different and to some extent "more pleasing" than the R. That is personal taste of course.

I think that they key point might be another one...

She usually uses camera raw to develop her files. She is showing the starting point from the EOS R in Camera RAW (Adobe Color profile).

However, there is no profile from Adobe yet for the R5/R6, so she might be using as "starting point" the DPP processing, which is, of course, really unfair...

But she did not specify of course.

 

[juanmaasecas]

I thought that was such a bad comparison (light and WB differences like you say) to be almost suspiciously designed to show the new camera in a better light, literally and figuratively. Maybe it wasn’t by design but it seems really misleading. Plenty of people who mightn’t know better would look at the comparison and think: “Oh, the R takes really horrible looking portraits but they are beautiful on the R6”.

Yeah, I agree about the R portrait and WB. Should have been set correctly to better show the difference (or lack of difference)

But I think she's on to something anyway. Looking at the other examples from the R6 makes me believe that the output is different and to some extent "more pleasing" than the R. That is personal taste of course.

I think that they key point might be another one...

She usually uses camera raw to develop her files. She is showing the starting point from the EOS R in Camera RAW (Adobe Color profile).

However, there is no profile from Adobe yet for the R5/R6, so she might be using as "starting point" the DPP processing, which is, of course, really unfair...

But she did not specify of course.

 

[sobrien]

I thought that was such a bad comparison (light and WB differences like you say) to be almost suspiciously designed to show the new camera in a better light, literally and figuratively. Maybe it wasn’t by design but it seems really misleading. Plenty of people who mightn’t know better would look at the comparison and think: “Oh, the R takes really horrible looking portraits but they are beautiful on the R6”.

Yeah, I agree about the R portrait and WB. Should have been set correctly to better show the difference (or lack of difference)

But I think she's on to something anyway. Looking at the other examples from the R6 makes me believe that the output is different and to some extent "more pleasing" than the R. That is personal taste of course.

I think that they key point might be another one...

She usually uses camera raw to develop her files. She is showing the starting point from the EOS R in Camera RAW (Adobe Color profile).

However, there is no profile from Adobe yet for the R5/R6, so she might be using as "starting point" the DPP processing, which is, of course, really unfair...

But she did not specify of course.

So she replied me in YT and she admits that she was using DPP with the R5/6 whilst Adobe camera raw for the R. Still she says the color from the new cameras is better, and she also was told that from Canon themselves. She also says R5 and R6 look identical colorwise.

 

[boldcolors]

So she replied me in YT and she admits that she was using DPP with the R5/6 whilst Adobe camera raw for the R. Still she says the color from the new cameras is better, and she also was told that from Canon themselves. She also says R5 and R6 look identical colorwise.

Good news. Thanks!

I would expect Canon to admit that color has improved though they keep saying that for each new model. But in this case I think they are right.

And by looking at the DXO score for EOS 1DX III it sort of confirms this as well. Metamerism index is 86 which is very good.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-1D-X-Mark-III---Measurements

Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the colors are pleasing to the eye (which also is a personal thing) but in combination with a solid camera profile it should give you a well balanced file to start with. Forgiving and easy to tweak with rich colors and hues in the right "feel good" place. Just like the old days

 

[lightnchade]

Forgiving and easy to tweak with rich colors and hues in the right "feel good" place. Just like the old days

Amen to that.

 

[lightnchade]

I thought that was such a bad comparison (light and WB differences like you say) to be almost suspiciously designed to show the new camera in a better light, literally and figuratively. Maybe it wasn’t by design but it seems really misleading. Plenty of people who mightn’t know better would look at the comparison and think: “Oh, the R takes really horrible looking portraits but they are beautiful on the R6”.

Yeah, I agree about the R portrait and WB. Should have been set correctly to better show the difference (or lack of difference)

But I think she's on to something anyway. Looking at the other examples from the R6 makes me believe that the output is different and to some extent "more pleasing" than the R. That is personal taste of course.

I think that they key point might be another one...

She usually uses camera raw to develop her files. She is showing the starting point from the EOS R in Camera RAW (Adobe Color profile).

However, there is no profile from Adobe yet for the R5/R6, so she might be using as "starting point" the DPP processing, which is, of course, really unfair...

But she did not specify of course.

So she replied me in YT and she admits that she was using DPP with the R5/6 whilst Adobe camera raw for the R. Still she says the color from the new cameras is better, and she also was told that from Canon themselves. She also says R5 and R6 look identical colorwise.

Good to hear. Thanks for sharing.

 

[tetsumo]

Maybe you can check Capture One with your Sony raw files, IMHO is the best one for the color of sony files.