Apparently, Canon is throwing a curve regarding the long rumored 32.5 MP sensor in the upcoming R8 II. Although just another rumor, but it sounds like they're going with a 24 MP sensor. Stay tuned and get the popcorn ready
Jim
wicktron wrote:
So... probably equivalent to the R6II, since they're likely to sunset that body, and they won't take the cripple hammer to it (wishful thinking)
The R6II and R8 use the same sensor, so if the R8II uses a 24MP sensor, it will either be the same one... or what? I kind of doubt they'd make a new 24MP sensor just for an R8II, but who knows. Considering the R8's price point, I imagine Canon sells a lot of them and it might warrant designing and manufacturing a new sensor specifically for a Mark II camera.
rscheffler wrote:
The R6II and R8 use the same sensor, so if the R8II uses a 24MP sensor, it will either be the same one... or what? I kind of doubt they'd make a new 24MP sensor just for an R8II, but who knows. Considering the R8's price point, I imagine Canon sells a lot of them and it might warrant designing and manufacturing a new sensor specifically for a Mark II camera.
That's roughly what I meant. The R8 is a crippled R6II without IBIS and mechanical shutter. I think it's reasonable that the R8II may be R6II without the cripple hammer. Maybe.
Aug 13, 2026 at 11:32 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rscheffler wrote:
The R6II and R8 use the same sensor, so if the R8II uses a 24MP sensor, it will either be the same one... or what? I kind of doubt they'd make a new 24MP sensor just for an R8II, but who knows. Considering the R8's price point, I imagine Canon sells a lot of them and it might warrant designing and manufacturing a new sensor specifically for a Mark II camera.
I think what we might see is a back side illuminated 24 MP sensor instead of the front side illuminated sensor in the R8 and R6 II. It is time for Canon to switch to this technology across all there sensors. It does have some advantages. Otherwise I agree that an R8 II with a 24MP sensor and good IBIS, at or close to its current size, would be a compelling camera. If they could add a full mechanical shutter in addition that would be great, but I won't hold my breath on that because I am not sure for this market the extra weight would be worth it as it takes quite a bit of expertise to know when to use it and when you don't need to use it.
Will be interesting to see what they do. While not stacked, the R6 II / R8 sensor does have pretty quick readout speed, matching the partially stacked Nikon Z6 III, but with better DR. I don't know if a budget full frame will need any more than that, so I wouldn't be surprised if they re-use the sensor, since it is already a very performant sensor overall.
Why does a low-grade FF body need the stackable sensor? I doubt it makes sense at the R8 price point unless the manufacturing is most all the stackable tech and there is no cost difference. The R8 series is not what serious photographers would choose for action anyway.
EB-1 wrote:
Why does a low-grade FF body need the stackable sensor? I doubt it makes sense at the R8 price point unless the manufacturing is most all the stackable tech and there is no cost difference. The R8 series is not what serious photographers would choose for action anyway.
EBH
It doesn't really need IBIS either since the vast majority of lenses have IS.
I thought some of the newer, cheaper lenses are lacking IS, but that is obviously a manufacturing cost issue. I had no IBID for 45 years and don't really need it.
EB-1 wrote:
Why does a low-grade FF body need the stackable sensor? I doubt it makes sense at the R8 price point unless the manufacturing is most all the stackable tech and there is no cost difference. The R8 series is not what serious photographers would choose for action anyway.
EBH
I'd think it'd be more about video. Faster AF is just one advantage, whereas for video, you get less rolling shutter but perhaps more importantly, more video modes available. That combined with the compactness (or just lower price) makes the camera more attractive for professionals too.
A big feature that's desired across Canon's lineup is open-gate video recording (or, just recording the whole sensor for video). This requires faster readout speeds and perhaps some other supporting infrastructure and coding (and thus warrants a Mark II), but should be cheap to implement if listed in development requirements.
It's trendy, it gets the influencers talking, and well, that's what sells.
The BSI sensor would answer one of my two dreams for the R8 II. I could finally use my rangefinder wide lenses without color shift. The other would be a flip out screen for photography purposes as compared to the articulating screen that's optimized for video.
EB-1 wrote:
They need to segment products somehow. I'd argue that APS-C is fine for consumer video.
EBH
I'd argue that it has been enough for some time - but, being 'enough' isn't what pumps up sales!
The compact, lightweight nature of the R8, as well as some of Canon's also compact and lightweight lenses, really leans into gimbal work. That's a lot of flexibility and quality in a light package.
Once in a while I put one pf my last EF-S´s, on a modern FF, usually the 10-18 on my RP or R8 forcing 9-10Mp. And guess what, the results are very much good enough. The juicy pixels of modern FF´s are so much better than those old 1000D´s and 7D´s. So why do I still mostly rely on 45Mp? FOMO I guess, fear of getting something wonderful without a massive resolution. 24Mp is ample for everything except when heavy cropping is the only way to get what the image provides. And a few other occasions, ofcourse, mostly in defence of buying those expensive bodies...
Z250SA wrote:
Once in a while I put one pf my last EF-S´s, on a modern FF, usually the 10-18 on my RP or R8 forcing 9-10Mp. And guess what, the results are very much good enough. The juicy pixels of modern FF´s are so much better than those old 1000D´s and 7D´s. So why do I still mostly rely on 45Mp? FOMO I guess, fear of getting something wonderful without a massive resolution. 24Mp is ample for everything except when heavy cropping is the only way to get what the image provides. And a few other occasions, ofcourse, mostly in defence of buying those expensive bodies......Show more →
If you look at the R6 II / III, there's a whole list of improvements that make the upgrade worthwhile, beyond resolution in the case of the III.
Jman13 wrote:
Will be interesting to see what they do. While not stacked, the R6 II / R8 sensor does have pretty quick readout speed, matching the partially stacked Nikon Z6 III, but with better DR. I don't know if a budget full frame will need any more than that, so I wouldn't be surprised if they re-use the sensor, since it is already a very performant sensor overall.
I don’t think this is accurate or at least there’s some caveats here. If you’re talking about electronic shutter readout speed matching Z6iii then the R6ii is actually below the Z6iii in dynamic range. That fast readout speed is a result of 12 bit readout instead of 14 bit.
Buckeye2604 wrote:
I don’t think this is accurate or at least there’s some caveats here. If you’re talking about electronic shutter readout speed matching Z6iii then the R6ii is actually below the Z6iii in dynamic range. That fast readout speed is a result of 12 bit readout instead of 14 bit.
Yeah, the Z6 III has better base ISO DR in electronic shutter, so I was mixing things, but for good reason.
1) Where max DR really matters is for low ISO shooting, and really at base ISO. Here the R6 II has more DR in mechanical shutter than the Z6 III in any mode, while the Z6 III has an advantage in electronic shutter - but for base ISO shooting this really is irrelevant, since when using electronic shutter where fast readout is important, you're not generally going to be shooting at base ISO in order to keep shutter speeds higher.
2) At ISO 200 and above, the dynamic range between the two cameras in electronic shutter is more or less the same. The Z6 III has a very slight advantage from 200 to 320. The R6 II has a very slight advantage from ISO 400 to 640...then they trade back a bit from ISO 800 to 1250, and then are largely equal. If you stick to whole number ISOs on the Canon, the difference is effectively zero all the way from 200 and higher. Where each has a slight advantage at 200 and above, we're talking differences of less than half a stop - something that is largely irrelevant in real world shooting.
When I'm using electronic shutter for action (where fast readout is important), I am almost NEVER shooting at ISO 100 - usually in the 400-6400 range. Where I care about DR is in situations where I'd be using the mechanical shutter (landscapes, etc), and the R6 II has the advantage there, by a full stop.
