I don't own an R5II, although I did have the original R5 for a while. Although very nice, the R5II is more money than I want to invest for my level of photography.
On the other hand, I think the R6II will hit the sweet spot and preordered one. I've had the R6II since it was released and have been very happy with it. However, I've always wished it had just a little more resolution, like the 5DIV and original R before it. This new version appears to fill my wish list, even though I will likely never use its video functions.
It will be interesting to see what choices people make. A R6iii with tax in my state is a few dollars short of $3k, a 9+ condition used R5ii can be had for a few hundred more.
thedruid wrote:
It will be interesting to see what choices people make. A R6iii with tax in my state is a few dollars short of $3k, a 9+ condition used R5ii can be had for a few hundred more.
And a new R5 for about the same. The r5 just lacks precapture, variable fps, clog2 [said clog3 in error - fixed] but it has better high iso performance and better iso 100 performance [and better winter performance]
Maybe wait until early purchasers have an opportunity to compare them in real-world situations. My interest is in hi iso low light situations, so Scott's observations are of interest.
Better, perhaps. But is it noticeably better for your needs? How high ISO are you shooting? I have not been disappointed with the R5II at ISO 6400 with AI NR compared to my R6II. In fact, the images seem very interchangeable.
swldstn wrote:
May seem like an easy question but just want the opinion of the group here.
If you already own the R5 Mark II is there any reason to buy an R6 Mark III?
I know the R6 III is less money and supports a higher frame rate and open-gate
But the R5 II has a superior EVF and Rear LCD and higher resolution.
So what features would make the R6 III more desirable as a second camera to the R5 II owner?
Are there any other than price?
Thank you in advance for your help.
It depends on what you prioritize. Also stills vs. video. From the video side, it seems like open gate and true over-sampled 4K60 is attractive for some. But I don't really care about video that much. I want a fast stills camera to use in e-shutter. The R6II/R6III are very good in their price category for this application, hence why I got an R6II back in 2022. But I'm disappointed the R6III didn't get a stacked sensor. I would have accepted this even at 24MP and a price premium and still would have bought one. While the R6III otherwise ticks a lot of the boxes that matter to me, including a preference for ~33MP over 45MP, I see little benefit to choose it over the R5II, if the R5II is in the budget. I'll take the drop to 30fps in exchange for a 'fast enough' stacked sensor and better EVF.
Yes, the R5 is the same price as the R6III, but here again it really depends on your priorities. For me, the R5 is not fast enough. It's 'only' 20fps with similar rolling shutter performance as the R6 series with an older generation of AF implementation. It also lacks certain minor features, that are important when they really matter, such as high frequency flicker compensation. But if you're a landscape photographer, you wouldn't care about this.
What is it that you want from a second camera? Does it need to do something different than the R5II? If not, just get another one.
As an original R6 user that is a stills shooter, the low mileage R52 vs R63 is a real conundrum. I’ve been happy with the R6 and have passed on the R6II as I was looking for a more meaningful step up. Had the R63 been a stacked sensor, I would have probably pre-ordered right at announcement, but sat on it instead. I don’t truly need the 45mp and the new price of an R52 is not what I necessarily want to do. Depending on just how quick the readout speed of the R63 is, it could be an ES option for some of my use cases where I otherwise have had to use mechanical to avoid rolling shutter effects. I’ll be curious to see high ISO performance as it directly to applies to some of the indoor swimming I shoot. It would have also been good to be able to adjust the frame rate like in the R52 as 20fps is fine for a lot of what I do, but 30 or 40 is a nice to have for sure. The increase to 32.5mp is great, a useable pre-capture by both, and the AF upgrade, which is pretty much shared with the R52, is very welcome.
The pre-order price via CPW was an added wrinkle that makes the R63 a bit more interesting for the price and I did pre-order via that path, but may or may not follow through when the time comes.
These are all very interesting comments. Thank you all for your feedback so far. Please keep them coming.
I’m still weighing my options since as I mentioned I already own the R5 Mark II. Now trying to decide if I should also add an R6 Mark III since I always value traveling with two bodies that can use the same lenses and these two now share the same memory cards and batteries and even the battery grips which I also already own. Sure one has more features and offers higher resolution but the key elements are very much aligned. Or do I look for a mint used R5. Trying to figure this out.
Ferrophot wrote:
Maybe wait until early purchasers have an opportunity to compare them in real-world situations. My interest is in hi iso low light situations, so Scott's observations are of interest.
I don't think that it's possible for the new R6 III to beat out an R5, R3, or R1 in that respect - is there a reason you're looking at the R6 III specifically, outside of price?
R6III should be better that the old R5 at high ISO, but it remains to be seen. I am very interested in this camera, but patiently waiting for the real reviews and potential issues. For me R5II looks overpriced and 33MP is the sweet spot, as I have a 5DIV.
I am possibly going to Kenya early next year and then Tuscany in late spring and then Duxford Airshow in the early fall. I have the R5II and love it, but am considering the R6III as a second body for both backup and for times when I need both telephoto and wide lenses at the same time. My biggest concern is the slight differences in controls and will that be an issue when switching back and forth quickly. But I really can’t justify a second R5II.
chas wrote:
I am possibly going to Kenya early next year and then Tuscany in late spring and then Duxford Airshow in the early fall. I have the R5II and love it, but am considering the R6III as a second body for both backup and for times when I need both telephoto and wide lenses at the same time. My biggest concern is the slight differences in controls and will that be an issue when switching back and forth quickly. But I really can’t justify a second R5II.
You can just buy a used R5II before you leave, use it on your trips, and then sell it for a very minor loss when you get home, aka rental fee. I'm a huge fan of two bodies, but not a huge fan of two different bodies. We were forced to that do back in the DSLR days, but I would not take two different bodies to Africa when you have the option of using two R5II's which are more than adequate for a safari.
My R6 does everything I want now but the demise of my backup 6D means I'm down to one camera. I take pictures of moving trains at night and birds with a 200-800 so low light performance is key. Yep, R1&3 are out of the frame due to budget. Probably get a R6II at some point.
ct1co2 wrote:
Depending on just how quick the readout speed of the R63 is, it could be an ES option for some of my use cases where I otherwise have had to use mechanical to avoid rolling shutter effects. I’ll be curious to see high ISO performance as it directly to applies to some of the indoor swimming I shoot. It would have also been good to be able to adjust the frame rate like in the R52 as 20fps is fine for a lot of what I do, but 30 or 40 is a nice to have for sure. The increase to 32.5mp is great, a useable pre-capture by both, and the AF upgrade, which is pretty much shared with the R52, is very welcome.
The pre-order price via CPW was an added wrinkle that makes the R63 a bit more interesting for the price and I did pre-order via that path, but may or may not follow through when the time comes. ...Show more →
DPR stated R6III readout speed is 1/74 (13.5ms). It's only marginally faster than the R6II, which is marginally faster than the R5 and somewhat faster than the R6. For reference, the R5II is ~1/160, R3 is ~1/209 and R1 is 1/357.
Canon finally added the ability to save camera settings to the memory card but I would also have liked to have the ability to fine-tune frame rate the same as the R5II. The R6III is the same as the R6II in this respect: 40, 20 and 5 fps continuous. R5II tops out at 30 but you can pick a lot more intermediate speeds. And I really like having 10 and 7.5 fps.
swldstn wrote:
These are all very interesting comments. Thank you all for your feedback so far. Please keep them coming.
I’m still weighing my options since as I mentioned I already own the R5 Mark II. Now trying to decide if I should also add an R6 Mark III since I always value traveling with two bodies that can use the same lenses and these two now share the same memory cards and batteries and even the battery grips which I also already own. Sure one has more features and offers higher resolution but the key elements are very much aligned. Or do I look for a mint used R5. Trying to figure this out.
I talked RustyRus into getting a second R5II, and I will recommend the same for you, if you can swing it.
I can only speak for myself but I much prefer to have two identical cameras because it's easier to switch between them when using both and it keeps post processing really simple and consistent. Whenever I've had two very similar cameras, the minor interface differences were always annoying and inevitably I would favor one over the other, for whatever reason. At the opposite end, I'd rather carry two radically different cameras that complement each other in more unique ways. For me this was pairing Leica M with my Canon kit. The approach with a Leica M can be very different and fun in itself.
For me, it comes down to stacked sensor vs not stacked. I haven’t been without a stacked sensor body since 2017 with the original Sony A9 because there is just no contest if you shoot in a way that stacked sensors serve well.
Not saying anything bad about the R6 iii. I just won’t spend anywhere near that much anymore for a body that isn’t equipped with a sensor that reads out at at least 6-7ms. This announcement helped me feel much more firm in my decision to go with a second R5 II.
Saw this post and decided that for what I want to use this camera for that I would bypass the R6 Mark III. If I decide to buy a backup I will wait and buy a second R5 Mark II as my backup. Will consider lightening my load of other equipment to offset the cost. Thank you all for the great feedback on my original question. Take care.
The R6iii sensor readout is roughly 1/74 s, which is far slower than the effective readout of a mechanical shutter (around 1/250 s). For subjects that demand shutter speeds faster than 1/74s to prevent motion blur, the slow electronic readout introduces rolling-shutter distortion. In those situations, mechanical shutter should be used.
The trade-off is that the mechanical shutter caps the burst rate at 12 fps instead of the 40 fps offered by the electronic shutter. But in practical terms, any subject that actually benefits from 40 fps is also moving fast enough that rolling-shutter artifacts become problematic.
So for real-world action shooting, the R6iii effectively behaves like a 12 fps camera, because using 40 fps comes with substantial rolling-shutter drawbacks.
While the R6iii is far and away less gimped than expected from Canon (remember the 6Dii?), the R5ii is clearly the more capable camera by a wide margin.
