tomasr Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
rscheffler wrote:
In use, the differences, IMO, are not very minor. But also not huge.
I guess it depends on what you need/expect. I have both the R6 and R6II and the R6II is the more 'refined' camera. Core capabilities are not hugely better, such as overall AF performance. But the R6II does have much better battery life and additional, if minor, features such as high frequency flicker reduction, more subject recognition types, ability to combine subject recognition with all AF point types. Its ability to operate at 40fps in stills capture suggests a fair amount more processing horsepower under the hood. Probably a combination of sensor speed and processor speed. And it is an all new sensor. For some these differences may be irrelevant. But I appreciate the improvements, otherwise I'd just have two R6s. Yet, because it's not a fundamental leap past the R6, I can and do still use the R6 with the R6II and it's a fairly seamless transition between the two (for stills work).
Given the larger timespan since the R5's intro and the likely R5II compared to the R6 and R6II, the R5II *should* offer more noticeable improvements over the original. And since then cameras like the Z8 have complicated matters for Canon to only offer a minor refresh....Show more →
Battery life would be the most significant one on that list, but to be fair I have a couple of old generic batteries that work fine when you just need to get through to the end of the shoot. I bought mine less than 2 months before II unexpectedly came out so I didn't feel exactly great about it, but wasn't going to just go ebay it and replace for a fairly limited number of new features. Internal RAW probably would have swayed me, and certainly a better EVF because that is one thing I truly hate about current camera. For video work you obviously don't need one, and for stills like interiors and landscapes I just use DSLR every single time.
40 fps is where it gets interesting. I personally find 20fps to be overkill, like I have to spend serious time picking The shot from like 60 frames. Imagine 1 out of 120. The good news is II can be customised and be set at less than 20fps while mk1 is stuck at either 1 or full 20. Curiously I have seen reviews claiming mk1 has a larger buffer and I can shoot a few good s to a fairly slow gen II SD card, whereas mkII just stops after 2s if that is correct. Anyway I am not a sports shooter, so that's only relevant if I want to be able to pick the sharpest shot at marginal settings or avoiding blinkies in a group shot.
The sensor upgrade is very relevant if it significantly improves 1) SNR, 2) rolling shutter 3) removed AA filter. +4MP is nice but has a long way to go to match even A7IV, let alone R5, and sometimes smaller files just means lower overhead for editing when clients just need images for web, and that's a lot of my work.
So maybe Canon just ran out of 20MP sensors, or 24MP one is much cheaper to make and they just threw in a few minor upgrades along the way.
|