# R6 - 1st Impressions



## PunkRawkJay (Sep 15, 2020)

Since I'm in the same boat w/ so many others waiting on my R5 to get here I decided to test drive the R6 for a week and I thought I'd give those of you considering ditching the R5 for the R6 what my 1st impressions are.

First off it feels like a Canon, the ergonomics are prefect and you will be instantly comfortable with it in hand. The ISO wheel is amazing, there's literally no need for any mode besides manual, I was able to make exposure changes while tracking birds in flight as the lighting changed in real time. I couldn't do this with my DSLR. The biggest upgrade in these cameras after the AF is the ability to change literally everything in the camera. There are so many ways to setup up back button focus, eye focus, etc... the camera can be built to your specific ways. For my needs I set it up so I can switch between AF Tracking, Animal eye, Human eye, and Spot AF without ever having to look at the camera. This was a game changer for me. 

The Animal Eye is as good as everyone says, it's stupid easy to use. Also, the rolling shutter, blackouts and other non-sense are just that. I was tracking Wood ducks and Mallards for 150 shot bursts with absolutey no issues. Keep your batteries charged and have a shutter speed fast enough to keep up and you won't have any issues.

I tested the R6 on EF lenses only (because thats all I have), I used the 50mm 1.2L, Sigma 150-600mm Sport, 24-70mm 2.8L III, and a x2 tele for most of my shots. The all worked great and it will focus at 1200mm with no problem but tracking fast moving objects suffered past 500mm on EF glasss. I will be keeping my EF primes and upgrading to RF telephotos as they come out. 

Image quality is ok, the camera can focus great so the images will be sharp but there was a a lot less detail than I'm used to. For anyone saying that the image quality is on par with the 6DMk II or 5D MkIV that just isn't the case I'm sorry. Im extremely happy I decided to go with the R5 I would be miserable coming home to the images the the R6 delivers. If you are keeping your images small and for social media this camera is great (what isn't?) but at lot of you would be underwhelmed. 

I'll post up an average photo I took with it for you to decide. This photo is uncropped (resized to fit here) taken at 490mm, ISO 5000, F 6.3, 1/4000


----------



## bernie_king (Sep 15, 2020)

PunkRawkJay said:


> Since I'm in the same boat w/ so many others waiting on my R5 to get here I decided to test drive the R6 for a week and I thought I'd give those of you considering ditching the R5 for the R6 what my 1st impressions are.
> 
> First off it feels like a Canon, the ergonomics are prefect and you will be instantly comfortable with it in hand. The ISO wheel is amazing, there's literally no need for any mode besides manual, I was able to make exposure changes while tracking birds in flight as the lighting changed in real time. I couldn't do this with my DSLR. The biggest upgrade in these cameras after the AF is the ability to change literally everything in the camera. There are so many ways to setup up back button focus, eye focus, etc... the camera can be built to your specific ways. For my needs I set it up so I can switch between AF Tracking, Animal eye, Human eye, and Spot AF without ever having to look at the camera. This was a game changer for me.
> 
> ...


Like you, I am waiting for my R5. I also picked up an R6 as a second camera. And while I agree with most of your synopsis, I'd have to disagree about image quality. I think it does a fine job. Maybe that's because I'm coming from a 1DX II with the same resolution. To me the detail is good, but at the same time I'm shooting with a 600f4 rather than a zoom so that may help as well. This is the same sensor used in the 1DX III, which is Canon's flagship professional camera and is producing images that are used in magazines, etc... Hardly a slouch. You just can't crop as hard. 

Saying all that, I'm eagerly awaiting my R5 so I can see what 45mp can do!


----------



## PunkRawkJay (Sep 15, 2020)

bernie_king said:


> Like you, I am waiting for my R5. I also picked up an R6 as a second camera. And while I agree with most of your synopsis, I'd have to disagree about image quality. I think it does a fine job. Maybe that's because I'm coming from a 1DX II with the same resolution. To me the detail is good, but at the same time I'm shooting with a 600f4 rather than a zoom so that may help as well. This is the same sensor used in the 1DX III, which is Canon's flagship professional camera and is producing images that are used in magazines, etc... Hardly a slouch. You just can't crop as hard.
> 
> Saying all that, I'm eagerly awaiting my R5 so I can see what 45mp can do!



The image quality is probably fine but I just can't help pixel peeping ( I know, I know) and when I come home and compare images to 30 megapixels I see a difference and it affects the way I judge the camera... All of this is so subjective, I just can't wait for my R5 and I'm glad I test drove the R6 it really helped me cement my decision. If the R5 didn't exist would I switch to the R6? No, it's not the camera for me. Is it a great camera? No doubt, it is.


----------



## tron (Sep 15, 2020)

Can you post a 100% crop of the F16s errr the ducks I mean  for us to see the quality?


----------



## PunkRawkJay (Sep 15, 2020)

tron said:


> Can you post a 100% crop of the F16s errr the ducks I mean  for us to see the quality?


. Keep in mind (to be fair to the R6) this is a very distance shot on a fast moving subject in poor light.


----------



## tron (Sep 15, 2020)

Thanks! Taking account the conditions you mentioned the result is nice. Now If only R6 had ... 45Mpixels


----------



## tron (Sep 15, 2020)

To tell the truth I am thinking of the possibility of part exchanging my EOS R for ROS R6 if I find a seller willing to accept it. Of course it depends on the price that EOS R will save me. R6 would be used for low light and landscape photography. Birding will continue to be covered by 5DsR, D500 and D850.

But I cannot help thinking that R5 would be a do all camera. The problem is it costs more than 4800 in my country. R6 costs 2900. If you compare to the corresponding US prices the R6 difference seems less of a rip off (3900$/4800 euros vs 2500$/2900 euros).


----------



## PunkRawkJay (Sep 15, 2020)

tron said:


> To tell the truth I am thinking of the possibility pf part exchanging my EOS R for ROS R6 if I find a seller willing to accept it. Of course it depends on the price that EOS R will save me. R6 would be used for low light and landscape photography. Birding will continue to be covered by 5DsR, D500 and D850.
> 
> But I cannot help thinking that R5 would be a do all camera. The problem is it costs more than 4800 in my country. R6 costs 2900. If you compare to the corresponding US prices the R6 difference seems less of a rip off (3900$/4800 euros vs 2500$/2900 euros).



I would rather do it the other way around and use the R6 for birding before landscapes. It's by far the most fun camera I've used to shoot birds with. I think that's probably what you meant though?


----------



## tron (Sep 15, 2020)

PunkRawkJay said:


> I would rather do it the other way around and use the R6 for birding before landscapes. It's by far the most fun camera I've used to shoot birds with. I think that's probably what you meant though?


Since I have capable birding cameras (D850/D500 with 500mmPF) i will not be able when traveling light to carry Canon big lenses. I will just need a small mirrorless camera in my otherwise full bag! Also I have the 2.8 L IS zooms for low light photos (church interiors, museums, etc). 20mpixels are too low for birding. I use 5Dsr with big Canon whites or D500/D850 with 500mmPF.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 15, 2020)

I, personally, won’t use less than 45 Mpx for bird photography since I got my 5DSR and I would get more from continuing with that than going down to the 20-30 Mpx sensors.


----------



## PunkRawkJay (Sep 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I, personally, won’t use less than 45 Mpx for bird photography since I got my 5DSR and I would get more from continuing with that than going down to the 20-30 Mpx sensors.



I don't blame you, just going from 30 to 20 was more than I liked... I can't imagine taking that kind of step down in resolution.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 15, 2020)

PunkRawkJay said:


> I don't blame you, just going from 30 to 20 was more than I liked... I can't imagine taking that kind of step down in resolution.



And that is why I didn't do the R6. I'm quite used to 32 MP thanks to my M6-II and even before that I was at 24 on my Rebel and M-50. There are things about the R6 I would probably have liked better--two SD slots instead of one slot I'll likely never bother with, and more controls on the top. But not with a sensor that feels like a huge step down.

That being said a birder friend of mine has decided to go with the R6--apparently she and her husband fear both diffraction and motion blur on the R5 showing up more due to the smaller pixels. I couldn't understand their reasoning, I wasn't quite sure if he was claiming it would be worse even without pixel peeping.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 15, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And that is why I didn't do the R6. I'm quite used to 32 MP thanks to my M6-II and even before that I was at 24 on my Rebel and M-50. There are things about the R6 I would probably have liked better--two SD slots instead of one slot I'll likely never bother with, and more controls on the top. But not with a sensor that feels like a huge step down.
> 
> That being said a birder friend of mine has decided to go with the R6--apparently she and her husband fear both diffraction and motion blur on the R5 showing up more due to the smaller pixels. I couldn't understand their reasoning, I wasn't quite sure if he was claiming it would be worse even without pixel peeping.


I am sure you could not understand their reasoning for the simple reason it is wrong: at the very worst there is no more motion blur or diffraction when the higher Mpx sensor output is viewed at the same size output as from the lower, and if the conditions are right, which is usually the case, the higher Mpx sensor will give a more detailed image and can be viewed at larger magnification.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I am sure you could not understand their reasoning for the simple reason it is wrong: at the very worst there is no more motion blur or diffraction when the higher Mpx sensor output is viewed at the same size output as from the lower, and if the conditions are right, which is usually the case, the higher Mpx sensor will give a more detailed image and can be viewed at larger magnification.



I tend to agree. I tried to point out the distinction between what you will see when you pixel peep vs looking at the two pictures at the same size, and got nowhere; he claimed he could see a difference even at the same size.

In any case I am sure the R6 is a solid camera given what it is. He told me they don't often crop a lot, but then...they are 7D shooters now. They might be changing their tune when their pictures are suddenly 1.6 times as large in each dimension.


----------



## mpeeps (Sep 16, 2020)

PunkRawkJay said:


> Since I'm in the same boat w/ so many others waiting on my R5 to get here I decided to test drive the R6 for a week and I thought I'd give those of you considering ditching the R5 for the R6 what my 1st impressions are.
> 
> First off it feels like a Canon, the ergonomics are prefect and you will be instantly comfortable with it in hand. The ISO wheel is amazing, there's literally no need for any mode besides manual, I was able to make exposure changes while tracking birds in flight as the lighting changed in real time. I couldn't do this with my DSLR. The biggest upgrade in these cameras after the AF is the ability to change literally everything in the camera. There are so many ways to setup up back button focus, eye focus, etc... the camera can be built to your specific ways. For my needs I set it up so I can switch between AF Tracking, Animal eye, Human eye, and Spot AF without ever having to look at the camera. This was a game changer for me.
> 
> ...


Did you have your 2X tele on for the ducks shot? If so, I would be thrilled with that result. I've rarely been happy with even the 1.4X extender but I'm a pixel peeper.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 16, 2020)

Strange you say that about the image quality. I find it on par or better than the EOS R / 5D4

(It's the first time I've been able to get colours like the 5DSr since I sold the 5DSr).


----------



## PunkRawkJay (Sep 16, 2020)

mpeeps said:


> Did you have your 2X tele on for the ducks shot? If so, I would be thrilled with that result. I've rarely been happy with even the 1.4X extender but I'm a pixel peeper.



Not on this shot. The tele worked fine no issues with auto-focus besides it was slower. I'll post something with it here when I get a chance to go through the pics. Thats the one thing about that FPS it's so easy to rack up a ton of photos.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 17, 2020)

I have the R6 and while I like it. I am leaning toward the R5. Coming from the RP I can see some better IQ with the R6 regarding detail but cannot see much of a benefit in high iso past 6400. Gets grainy fast. If the iso is close on the R5 I feel like that is the camera for me. Just wish it kept the mode dial and dual SD card slots. I did confirm that the C1-3 modes can be used for video.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 17, 2020)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Coming from the RP I can see some better IQ with the R6 regarding detail but cannot see much of a benefit in high iso past 6400.



My ears picked up here. The RP is 26 mp, the R6 20. Under what circumstances are you seeing more detail in the R6 ? Just high ISO or at lower / base ISO too ?


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Sep 17, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> My ears picked up here. The RP is 26 mp, the R6 20. Under what circumstances are you seeing more detail in the R6 ? Just high ISO or at lower / base ISO too ?



You can get a good comparison on the studio comparison tools.






Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com





Here's the comparison for bumping up the underexposed images at 100 ISO to give you an idea of the dynamic range.



Image comparison: Digital Photography Review



The RP sensor technology looks to be more comparable with the 5D Mark III. It looks great when properly exposed, but it suffers at high ISO and with shadow recovery. With properly exposed 100 ISO, it looks like the RP beats out the R6 by just a smidge when pixel peeping.

Note: You can switch the view between 100 percent crop(which is unfair for comparing ISO between different resolutions), but you can make the composition equal in the view panel.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 18, 2020)

The 4k ipb video is better than the RP 1080p. As for the RP, i feel it starts more detailed and stays there. But in any event iso 6400 and above have noise. The R6 just maintains better fidelity than the RP. I will try to find a pic to compare.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 18, 2020)

The yellow shirt of my daughter is the closest I could reproduce all settings equal. It is the sooc jpeg. The second is the RP. Only difference is the f is 3.5 vs 4. Welcome to thoughts but I think the R6 in most cases retains more detail but agree it seems like properly exposed iso 100-800 seem to have the edge going to the RP.


----------



## dwarven (Oct 2, 2020)

PunkRawkJay said:


> Image quality is ok, the camera can focus great so the images will be sharp but there was a a lot less detail than I'm used to. For anyone saying that the image quality is on par with the 6DMk II or 5D MkIV that just isn't the case I'm sorry.



I'm disputing this. I've downloaded RAW files from the R6 and they look quite good. Better at higher ISOs than any other camera to date that I've downloaded RAW files for. Possibly some user error happening? I don't mean to insult, but that is quite a statement you've made.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 2, 2020)

Personally I see a similar amount of noise, thought the 6D II is the 'worst' without question. There is unmistakably more detail in the 5D IV but the differences after optimal processing are not going to be large, indeed if you aren't cropping then I think they would all be comparable at normal output sizes.

My personal rating would be low to high:
6D II
1DX II
R6
5D IV
But they are certainly 'on par' with each other.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 2, 2020)

It's funny because the OOC jpegs are way different results to me. But that is probably just the way they are being handled, do DPR use OOC jpegs or are they Adobe rendered 'OOC' jpegs? I think the later so not very representative of what you might actually get OOC.

I'd go worst to best:
R6
6D II
5D IV
1DX II


----------



## dwarven (Oct 2, 2020)

Hmm, I had a different take. For example, even the 5D IV starts to fall apart before the R6 in this scene (granted, only a small difference). I don't know anyone who shoots seriously at 12k ISO, so 6400 seems a little more reasonable.


----------



## RickD (Oct 4, 2020)

Been playing with mine for around a week now, and I'm impressed with everything so far, and I haven't even tested out the animal AF yet. But then I'm coming from a T4i, so I guess it'd be hard not to be.

Attached a picture I took today. Not the best photographically, but definitely resolving far more detail than I'm used to. First Image is a Lightroom jpeg export of a RAW file with only LR's lens profile correction and remove CA applied. No other adjustments. Second one is a screen grab at 100% zoom, after processing.





One thing I did notice, is that the RAW files seem to be smaller than my T4i. They're .cr3 rather than .cr2... I tried to research into this but was unable to find anythng. Any ideas?


----------



## Joules (Oct 4, 2020)

RickD said:


> One thing I did notice, is that the RAW files seem to be smaller than my T4i. They're .cr3 rather than .cr2... I tried to research into this but was unable to find anythng. Any ideas?


CR3 can store both lossless and lossy compression formats. So if they are significantly lower, odds are you're using the lossy variant. I am not aware of any comparison that actually showed a noteworthy difference between the two in terms of quality though. So, if you are interested in the smallest files, just keep in mind that you are losing some information in the images, although I can't tell you what exactly. 

Or maybe you've just shot less complicated scenes at lower ISO yet. High detail, especially fine one such as noise, does increase file sizes.


----------



## RickD (Oct 4, 2020)

I'm pretty sure I'm using standard RAW. I did a little research into C-Raw, and the file sizes from my shots aren't that small, they're coming out at around 18-20mb, whereas my T4i was usually around 25mb


----------



## Joules (Oct 5, 2020)

RickD said:


> I'm pretty sure I'm using standard RAW. I did a little research into C-Raw, and the file sizes from my shots aren't that small, they're coming out at around 18-20mb, whereas my T4i was usually around 25mb


That sounds about right to me.

With its larger pixels and far less noisy electronics, just the reduction in noise should help a good bit with file sizes. Being a former T3i shooter myself, the sensor in those cameras doesn't hold up all that well compared to modern ones.


----------



## RickD (Oct 5, 2020)

Joules said:


> That sounds about right to me.
> 
> With its larger pixels and far less noisy electronics, just the reduction in noise should help a good bit with file sizes. Being a former T3i shooter myself, the sensor in those cameras doesn't hold up all that well compared to modern ones.



That would make sense. I was afraid to go above 400 iso on my T4i, so very rarely saw RAW files above 30mb. I didn't realise quite how much impact noise has on file size.


----------



## PunkRawkJay (Oct 7, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I'm disputing this. I've downloaded RAW files from the R6 and they look quite good. Better at higher ISOs than any other camera to date that I've downloaded RAW files for. Possibly some user error happening? I don't mean to insult, but that is quite a statement you've made.


Without a doubt it's 100% possible it was user error. If anyone could mess it up, it's me.


----------



## SaP34US (Oct 17, 2020)

Is it true that you can't use C1 C2 and C3 for custom video settings but only for photos?


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 18, 2020)

SaP34US said:


> Is it true that you can't use C1 C2 and C3 for custom video settings but only for photos?


Kinda, in photo mode you get C1-3 and can only store photo settings, if you go to video mode you also get C1-3, but you can only store video settings. But think of those as C4-6, they don’t overlap.
Video C3 is special, it’s the mode that will be used when you press record in photo mode.


----------



## dwarven (Oct 25, 2020)

Yeah, I've had the R6 for over a week now and the IQ is incredible. Indisputably better than the 6D Mark II and marginally better than the 5D Mark IV.


----------

