IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Good call - they seem pretty similar, but the CA are differently colored? If anything the new 45 looks a smidge better to me.
Again, at 1/3 the price, it's hard to complain (though of course I would not touch either with a ten foot pole, but that's me).
I've seen the EF 50 1.2 sell on the B/S forum between $495 & $600, so not that much of a price difference, however, the 45 is a native lens, which matters to some people.
Jim
EB-1 wrote:
Are the R5 and R6 not using the same EVF? I have an R7 with a crappy EVF; is it like that?
EBH
The first generation R5 and R6 used different EVF panels. The R5's was (is) higher DR and I believe higher resolution. From what I recall, the R6II used the same one as the R6, which would mean it's the same one in the R6III. I have both the R6 and R6II and how the EVF performs in the II did improve, but due to the II's more powerful processor. There is less lagginess with the II, but still some. It's possible this will improve further with the III because of its more recent processor. That said, the panel in the 6/6II was lower DR than that in the 5 and more easily blocked up or blew out image details in high contrast scenes, meaning that what you saw in the EVF wasn't necessarily representative of the DR captured in images (which you would have to review after the shot to confirm). Use of the live histogram with the 6/6II is IMO necessary to have a visual confirmation that the scene actually does fit in the sensor's DR.
If the III's EVF panel is the same as the II's, I agree it is frustrating to see at this price... along with a non-stacked sensor.
The III had the potential to really dominate this segment even more but it seems Canon is adding just enough, as usual, to make higher end models more appealing for those of us who would like just a bit more performance.
jgoetz4 wrote:
I've seen the EF 50 1.2 sell on the B/S forum between $525 & $600, so not that much of a price difference, however, the 45 is a native lens, which matters to some people.
Jim
The new RF 45/1.2 is mostly going to replace the RF 50/1.8 - it's going to be the second cheapest standard lens, after all.
Might also be popular for video where resolution beyond 4k / 8MP is much less important, and the light weight will be a boon for gimble users.
matejphoto wrote:
Nobody excited about the 45mm f/1.2 STM
I have the 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 VCM and also the 35mm 1.8, but I am still interested. If it is nice and light I might still buy it. If it is the size and weight of the 50mm 1.4 VCM then I will pass.
I'm certainly interested but depends on price & IQ compromise obviously. Not jumping in early until some real impressions are out (not the usual paid YT stuff).
rscheffler wrote:
The III had the potential to really dominate this segment even more but it seems Canon is adding just enough, as usual, to make higher end models more appealing for those of us who would like just a bit more performance.
This R6iii release is decent, especially given that the R6ii is only 3 years old. 7K/30 open-gate, 4K/120 (full-width), pre-capture, 33MP and CF cards are all welcome.
Its not a shitshow like the 6Dii release that's for sure.
Personally, I’m still impressed that they were able to get the sensor readout speed to 12.2ms without going with a stacked or partially stacked configuration. Although, I still think the more compelling choice would have been to go stacked and increase the price a bit instead. I don’t want any of my bodies to be slower than 6-7ms these days if I can help it.
EB-1 wrote:
It's far more than that. Look at the MTF. And why does it need to be like that? There are plenty of fast normal lenses from 3rd parties that are not. Obviously Canon wanted some bad IQ for the neuralgic market since the 3rd party lenses are practically excluded. I really thought it would better than it is, but not great
EBH
Was the old EF 50 F1.2 that bad wide open? Yes. But I'd say the L gets a lot better a lot faster.
If you compare the RF 45mm 1.2 to the older EF 50 F1.4, it's fairly similar in performance. What's odd to me about TDP's test is the midframe is the sharpest part of the lens on the RF, and the center remains soft. If you could AFMA the lens I think most people would see that and adjust accordingly. Time will tell if that was a design choice or if that copy is just off.
If someone was going to use the RF 45mm as a 90% F2.8 or narrower, it's not as bad as it seems. F2.8 - F11 are all okay and I'd argue F11 is better than F2.8 even with diffraction. So for the novice who mainly let's the camera pick their aperture it will probably look great when it picks F5.6.
Looking at the optic diagram, the design does seem similar to the EF50 1.4. There are two more elements with one more group, but isn't not that far off:
In stills, it is still almost certainly using 12 bit RAW in electronic shutter, vs 14 bit RAW and no difference between electronic and mechanical for the partially stacked Z6 III. Still impressive though.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Personally, I’m still impressed that they were able to get the sensor readout speed to 12.2ms without going with a stacked or partially stacked configuration. Although, I still think the more compelling choice would have been to go stacked and increase the price a bit instead. I don’t want any of my bodies to be slower than 6-7ms these days if I can help it.
aCuria wrote:
This R6iii release is decent, especially given that the R6ii is only 3 years old. 7K/30 open-gate, 4K/120 (full-width), pre-capture, 33MP and CF cards are all welcome.
Its not a shitshow like the 6Dii release that's for sure.
Yes, it's a decent update and like the R6 to R6II, a lot of the subtle differences might add up enough to make it a compelling upgrade for someone already using the R6II. That is what I found when I compared the R6II to the R6, and as a result, added the R6II. For sure, with what I do, the R6III would not be a step backwards from the R6II. It's just that on paper, it's not enough of the performance boost *I* would have liked, primarily with respect to rolling shutter. Especially after having had use of an R5II for a while.
Things I do like about the R6III:
- Significantly larger RAW buffer (2x # of images than R6II) despite higher resolution. This was not the case with the R6II, which retained the same buffer storage size as the R6 but the total number of images the buffer could hold dropped because sensor resolution increased)
- Higher resolution.IMO ~33MP is 'just right' whereas I find 45MP is often excessive for many of my needs.
- Refined AF algorithm supposedly in-line with the R5II and R1
- Save / load settings on card (FINALLY available on the 6 series!)
Things I would like to see added via firmware:
- Better ability to fine-tune fps rate in e-shutter. Like the R6II it has 40, 20 and 5fps options. I would really like to add 7.5 and 10fps options.
Z250SA wrote:
Unless going for the 45Mp´s as I did, this is the first decent step up from the 5D4. 24Mp... hahh!!
I agree that 5D users now have another choice. The R6 III makes a compelling argument versus getting an older R5, and in most cases should be an upgrade for most features. The biggest drawback I see is the lack of any top screen on the camera, which can be useful for checking some functions at a glance.
Jman13 wrote:
In stills, it is still almost certainly using 12 bit RAW in electronic shutter, vs 14 bit RAW and no difference between electronic and mechanical for the partially stacked Z6 III. Still impressive though.
The full spec sheet over at Canon USA indicates it's 12-bit in e-shutter, 14 in EFCS/mechanical, which is also what DPR stated.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Personally, I’m still impressed that they were able to get the sensor readout speed to 12.2ms without going with a stacked or partially stacked configuration. Although, I still think the more compelling choice would have been to go stacked and increase the price a bit instead. I don’t want any of my bodies to be slower than 6-7ms these days if I can help it.
I agree. I would pay 10-15% more for a modest ~6ms stacked sensor and trade off a bit of DR. But I guess that would push the 6 series into a kind of gray zone and make it even more expensive than the current competition in this category.
Other than the unchanged EVF specs, everything else 'action-centric' about the camera is a solid upgrade over the R6II.
rscheffler wrote:
I agree. I would pay 10-15% more for a modest ~6ms stacked sensor and trade off a bit of DR. But I guess that would push the 6 series into a kind of gray zone and make it even more expensive than the current competition in this category.
Kind of interesting that we're trading DR for sensor readout speed - something I agree with, because we really do have enough DR for most shooting and have had for over a decade (DR doesn't hold my 6D back at all, it's the AF).
But the increase in cost to do so makes it an awkward tradeoff, because small gains on cameras not pining for really fast action or being video-centric are probably not worth it.
EB-1 wrote:
The 5D IV is 30MP, so not much difference.
EBH
If the small jump in Mp was the only change, yes. But wait! There is more!! Oh so much more. You know that.
Only the build-in GPS is lacking from the R63 as well as from all the other present day bodies of interest (= Canon). And for some uses, the optical viewfinder had its benefits. But I would NEVER go back to that tech if I lost the choice of the R5´s.
