JPM29

@FelipeCastro. Good, that is the best combination for you I guess. The only cam on the market that does slightly better than the R6 mkII is the R6 mkI, that is my favourite cam.

@FelipeCastro. Keep you Canon R6 mkII, if you want high ISO quality it performs better than the Nikon...

In low light both Canon R6 and Nikon Z 7 II are very good and pretty much equal. As usual Sony does not perform well in difficult conditions, don't know why, but it's the...

I do think that the individual will do better thant AI, photographers will do better at reality than AI fiction, and painters creativity will do better than AI fiction too. Which is why I hate...

Painters were afraid of photography and now AI will provide the possibility to create like a painter but not as well and freedom that a painter can. Is it a progress or not ? I will continue to...

@MikeRan, I like the slow motion and it can be good for it.
The images could have been done by anather cam, we don't know the respective hit ratio though.

@EmotionBlur, it seems more a camera for experiments than for sports IMO.

@armandino, "GS brings in a lot for trading some IQ. Canon sensors were only trading IQ for nothing in exchange." Can you go trolling somewhere else ?

@armandino, "R3 does not focus in between. It also has a quirky implementation" Do you really like make a fool of yourself ?

@armandino, you are speaking for yourself.

Basically it's a very expensive cam for photos for rooms with bad leds. Pretty limited use.

@danart, even in the more lighted area that you used the R6 is doing better. And paying 6000 $ because "cameras today are not necessarily being geared for IQ so much as they are geared for speed...

The only interest of this camera is as a second one, I do use my cam more often in low light than with bad leds. The R6 is still the cleanest at 12 800 and even more above....

@MikeRan, when I said"I don't know how you can get more detail on one if you have to scale the Sony at 20MP" it was about the photos of 25 600 that we were talking, but you don't show it because...

@MikeRan, why extracting details if you can't see it ?
You say you can do better à 25 600 but you work to present a 3200 in a lighted area, it is just pointless, do the job with 25 600 in the...

@MikeRan, ok, now I understand, it was at 3200 and in the lighted area, no need to extract the RAW, correct it, and all the work around, the Jpeg gives about the same result.
In bright conditions...

@MikeRan
- Cause of the difference: I don't know, DPR says that they measure the light so, lighter filter ? bigger pixel capture more light ?
- Results after processing in RAW: I don't know how...

@ZZT231, I agree, and that is why I prefer lower resolution sensors for my type of photo.

@MikeRan, every photographer has his style, for me the sweet spot is between 20 MP to 25 MP, I shoot up to 25 600 and sometimes 51 200 + . The Canon R1 may be 50 MP or more, for me it is of no...

@ZZT231, oviously 61 MP will give more details in bright light, and if you want more you can buy a 200 MP cell phone, but for what ?
As for the "cleanest" I am sure you can't make the difference...