artsupreme wrote:
Got it. As for precapture, be careful falling for that gimmick. I understand there are very very niche uses for it and it can be of use, but IMO it's nothing to consider when buying a camera unless you shoot in those niches very very often. The bird flying off a perch use that you often see here is questionable as it only works well if the bird is flying in a horizontal plane. I've tested this with kicking bushes to make birds fly away and I get the same result. I've had the R5II's since before the release date and I've yet to use precapture. I can think of a few uses for it, but they aren't a part of my general photography which is sports, action sports, portraits, and travel. Someday I'll probably use it for something, but I've yet to find a need for it. ...Show more →
I also don't find it very useful. After awhile the finger goes numb and the bird is still there.
Sort of a nexus to the precapture topic, but it should also be noted that the R6iii only does 12 bit raw in ES (also a dealbreaker for me).
The combination of the sensor readout speed of the R6iii, lack of 14 bit raw in ES, reuse of the EVF and rear LCD from the R6ii just doesn’t work for me at $2799.
When the R5 arrived about 5 years I thought the 12-bit A/D would be terribly limiting, but in practice it isn't for the typical 20FPS use case. However, it is a bit disappointing for a new 2025 camera not to have at least 13 bits in ES at the slower framing rates. In some ways the R6 III is like a 5D IV successor.
Mike_5D wrote:
Crazy how quickly cameras went from impressing everyone with 10-15 fps to not being able to stop fast action without a stacked sensor.
It's a different problem. Fps rate has nothing to do with action stopping ability, just better odds of getting 'the' shot if machine-gunning it.
But every game when I'm shooting at 40 fps and reviewing images, I can't help but think back to the 1DX/1DXII at 12/14 fps, or event previous 1D series cameras that were as slow as around 8-8.5 fps. How did I ever manage? Or film where until the 1V or EOS-1nRS, 10 fps was unheard of and 6 was the norm. Now when a QB throws the ball, it still surprised me a bit at how much shot to shot variation there is between frames even at 40 fps. Or a RB momentary shoots through a seam before being tackled. Maybe I get 3-5 frames at 40 fps, which a decade ago meant I only would have had one. Yeah, WAY more content to sift through, but it's the tradeoff for having WAY more selection (and nearly everything is in focus too!).
jwolfe wrote:
My point is, if I want to shoot blackout free the R6III will not have a fast enough readout speed to avoid rolling shutter. The Nikon Z6III is. Although I dislike the sensor in that camera for other reasons.
I owned a Z8 and loved it but couldn't justify a $3k camera in my bag when I'm only working PT (health). I keep hoping someone will come along with a compromise, especially a D500 replacement, with a stacked sensor, but alas nothing yet.
To be honest my Nikon DSLR gear makes better images than the Z6III. But Canon has been rocking it with lenses lately.
Eventually it'll happen I just have to be patient.
R6III has e-shutter readout speed of 1/74 measured by DPR. Nikon Z6III is 1/69, measured here, so it's a wash. Maybe this is why Canon didn't bother with stacked. But we still have to see what Sony does with the a7V. R6II is 1/68. I have shot several seasons of football with the R6II, and you only see rolling shutter effects with fast pans (leaning uprights in background) and fast directional changes, when viewing images quickly in succession. It's definitely useable, but I don't do stick and round ball sports where it would be more noticeable. And with every hockey player now using composite blades, who's to say the bend in the stick is because of rolling shutter rather than the actual bend. The R5II is definitely a better experience with a smoother EVF and 1/160 stacked sensor readout shows virtually no signs of jello...
But yeah, I'd love a stacked sensor R6III. It would have really set it apart from the competition in this category (and cost a lot more, too). I think there could be a market for such a camera but if the R5/Z8 category doesn't increase with the next releases, then maybe not, as a ~3200 stacked 30ish MP camera will perhaps be too close in price to those.
For what it is worth - I used to have to Canon R5 - lots to love about them and never had any real issues. I had a Canon R6 II for a while, took in a winter trip to Sweden and it froze when using it outside. I had to keep the darn thing inside my downjacket all the time, take it out for a shot, and put it back in. That wasn't much fun.
Reg the new RF 45/1.2 I know Fro isn't everyone's cup of tea, but here is his review
Personally, I know that nervous bokeh and green fringing would drive me nuts, but that's just me. I do like the idea of Canon putting out more affordable glass (made in Malaysia) but I still would much prefer having options from Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, etc instead of waiting for Canon to release affordable glass options.
I know the Canon R5 II is the "ideal" camera for me in terms of mix of performance and IQ, but I cannot justify spending that type of money at this point, esp with the L glass I want.
patotts wrote:
Reg the new RF 45/1.2 I know Fro isn't everyone's cup of tea, but here is his review
His... style usually puts me off, but the video is short enough and full of real shooting (not test charts) and shows off everything you'd want to know about effective performance. The lens really is like an EF 50/1.4 USM successor, but better in every way including the faster aperture.
patotts wrote:
Personally, I know that nervous bokeh and green fringing would drive me nuts, but that's just me.
Well, it's there, and in the right situations, it's pretty strong, to the point that cleaning it up in post will likely leave artifacts behind unless you're also doing some AI wizardry (i.e. just desaturating the LoCA will be noticeable).
But if you watched Fro's video, and you see the reaction to the shot he showed the cook, real-world this just does not matter as much, and the CA does calm down quickly when the aperture is closed.
patotts wrote:
I do like the idea of Canon putting out more affordable glass (made in Malaysia)
Place of manufacture has no bearing here. Canon could be making lenses in Greenland or Yemen, and since those places have humans like everywhere else that can follow procedures, they can make quality products.
patotts wrote:
but I still would much prefer having options from Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, etc instead of waiting for Canon to release affordable glass options.
We'd all love for Canon to open up the RF mount. We know more or less why they won't, and it likely makes sense from a C-suite, but obviously it's frustrating for end-users when there's no native option for a particular desired composition.
I preordered that 45 as soon as I could, as I have an affinity for tinkering with/collecting interesting imperfect lenses. Also, it costs just slightly more than my memory card which made it a pretty easy pick-up. Lol
Thanks for posting the Fro review. Had been wanting to see more real world images already, but they’ve been pretty sparse.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
I preordered that 45 as soon as I could, as I have an affinity for tinkering with/collecting interesting imperfect lenses. Also, it costs just slightly more than my memory card which made it a pretty easy pick-up. Lol
Thanks for posting the Fro review. Had been wanting to see more real world images already, but they’ve been pretty sparse.
Yeah I think Canon is going to crush it with this lens. A poor man's f/1.2 that is plenty adequate to get the job done is going to sell like hot cakes. No one other than the photographer is going to see it's flaws, which applies to just about all gear these days.
t has its flaws, like every other camera on the market, but for me it appears to be better than everything else Canon has. It fits best for my type of photography because it seems very fast, it's small, has great AF, is relatively budget friendly, has precapture etc.
I usually shoot wild mammals in the mountains, on very long hikes (20-30km) with a EF600mm III and a 5DIV. This will open a whole new world for bird photography and is actually the first mirrorless that looks attractive to make the switch.
5DIV was extremely reliable, immune to anything in the wild and I will keep it. R6III will be different in so many ways, but I know exactly what I want and this one ticks almost all the boxes.
Uarctos wrote:
t has its flaws, like every other camera on the market, but for me it appears to be better than everything else Canon has. It fits best for my type of photography because it seems very fast, it's small, has great AF, is relatively budget friendly, has precapture etc.
I usually shoot wild mammals in the mountains, on very long hikes (20-30km) with a EF600mm III and a 5DIV. This will open a whole new world for bird photography and is actually the first mirrorless that looks attractive to make the switch.
5DIV was extremely reliable, immune to anything in the wild and I will keep it. R6III will be different in so many ways, but I know exactly what I want and this one ticks almost all the boxes....Show more →
R5II and R6III are nearly the same size and less than 50g difference in weight. If you buy an R6III you are getting an outdated EVF, no stacked sensor, and less resolution for maybe only $400 less than a LNIB R5II. Just a thought. R6III would be a better value in the low 2K range, but regardless, it will be a huge upgrade from your 5DIV if that's what you decide on.
Must have never heard of the A1 or Z8 or R5ii. The Z8 is so sharp the amount of cropping I could do was insane.
A R6iii is not an ideal birding camera.
Uarctos wrote:
t has its flaws, like every other camera on the market, but for me it appears to be better than everything else Canon has. It fits best for my type of photography because it seems very fast, it's small, has great AF, is relatively budget friendly, has precapture etc.
I usually shoot wild mammals in the mountains, on very long hikes (20-30km) with a EF600mm III and a 5DIV. This will open a whole new world for bird photography and is actually the first mirrorless that looks attractive to make the switch.
5DIV was extremely reliable, immune to anything in the wild and I will keep it. R6III will be different in so many ways, but I know exactly what I want and this one ticks almost all the boxes....Show more →
Uarctos wrote:
t has its flaws, like every other camera on the market, but for me it appears to be better than everything else Canon has. It fits best for my type of photography because it seems very fast, it's small, has great AF, is relatively budget friendly, has precapture etc.
I usually shoot wild mammals in the mountains, on very long hikes (20-30km) with a EF600mm III and a 5DIV. This will open a whole new world for bird photography and is actually the first mirrorless that looks attractive to make the switch.
5DIV was extremely reliable, immune to anything in the wild and I will keep it. R6III will be different in so many ways, but I know exactly what I want and this one ticks almost all the boxes....Show more →
If you're happy with the output (resolution) from your 5DIV, then the R6III is the nearest current Canon mirrorless but with a ton more performance than was ever available from DSLRs. That said, what the others have stated is also valid. For not much more, the R5II is worth considering.
I'm curious why you didn't previously consider the R5II a worthy choice for transitioning to mirrorless? If it was purely a budgetary consideration, shopping around for a lightly used copy should narrow the gap considerably.
Rolling shutter is a non issue for mammals or perched birds that make up most of my shooting. For small BIF I can revert to the mechanical shutter and 12 fps will suffice. Large BIF are slow so the ES will do the job just fine.
R5II has a noisier sensor and is too expensive for my budget. The R6III will be bought used as I find it also too expensive on the shelf.
So, I'm not saying that the R5II is worse than the R6III, but for my shooting style it will not make a difference and it will just mean money down the drain.
artsupreme wrote:
R5II and R6III are nearly the same size and less than 50g difference in weight. If you buy an R6III you are getting an outdated EVF, no stacked sensor, and less resolution for maybe only $400 less than a LNIB R5II. Just a thought. R6III would be a better value in the low 2K range, but regardless, it will be a huge upgrade from your 5DIV if that's what you decide on.
I agree, I rather take a minty used R5 II over a BNIB R6 III.
Fps rate has nothing to do with action stopping ability, just better odds of getting 'the' shot if machine-gunning it.