johnctharp wrote:
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.
Yeah, I went from 6D to R6/2, and never been happier with known limitations (battery life and tiny EVF lag).
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.
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.
Jman13 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Is R6II actually apples to apples vs the Z6III? Both are 24MP, but if you compare the same generation R6III vs. Z6III, e-shutter DR is pretty much exactly the same, yet R6III in mechanical/EFCS, gains another stop or so at base ISO and performs very similarly to the R6II. R6III's sensor really seems to be a 'best of both worlds' situation at this price point, offering competitive base ISO DR in mechanical/EFCS and addressing the substantial e-shutter DR loss of the R6II and R6 generations, putting it basically on-par with most other sensors in e-shutter.
Jman13 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
I personally try to avoid mechanical shutter whenever possible and use E-shutter for landscapes to prevent any shake coming from mechanical shutter. I haven’t really tested mech shutter vibrations but I would guess it’s less an issue than mirror slap from DSLR days. Just a habit from those days.
At low ISO ideally one would want MS or maybe EFCS for higher DR than ES, depending on camera.
Some lenses like the RF 70-200/4 have no tripod mount and like to vibrate with MS, so are better with EFCS at the worst shutter speeds.
Buckeye2604 wrote:
I personally try to avoid mechanical shutter whenever possible and use E-shutter for landscapes to prevent any shake coming from mechanical shutter. I haven’t really tested mech shutter vibrations but I would guess it’s less an issue than mirror slap from DSLR days. Just a habit from those days.
It’s essentially a non issue, especially if you use EFCS.
