Canon R6 mk2

NorBro said:
Personally I'm not in the 100+MP camp but I'd say 24 is too low these days. I'd start with 32 but ideally would like to have 45ish.

File sizes, processing times, transferring times, similar considerations aren't much of a thought in 2023 if you don't want them to be.

Meaning...anyone shooting on those types of cameras has the money & knowledge to make it work. And if you cannot make the transferring times work even with the fastest methods possible then you simply cannot use those cameras (or at those resolutions/formats) and it's moot.
Click to expand...

Man, our posts are so similar it is scary.
 
Doug Jensen said:
That's not what you said. You said "Even on the photo side there is sometimes a thing as too many MP. "

There's never such a thing as too much resolution for photos. Now, YOU may prefer trading some resolution for having the smaller file sizes, faster transfer times, etc. that lower MP senors give you, and YOU may not care about having the choice of cropping in post, but none of those things is the same thing as saying you can have too many MP. If all other things were equal, only a fool would choose a lower resolution camera over a higher one.

Personally, I have a 50MP A1 and there is no way in hell I'd go back to a lower-res sensor. As a matter of fact, I'm looking forward to a 100MP camera some day that has all the same features but better performance.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I said. "Sometimes" Key word there. Sometimes photographers do not want 45 MP and really they have no choice but to take 45 MP or crop heavily. I shoot FF to have FF. For the FOV and to maximize what I can get out of my lenses. I don't mind cropping when needed but it shouldn't be the norm.

Plenty of really good 20-26 MP cameras out there and plenty of pros shooting in that range. Many photographers choose the R6 over the R5 not for budget reasons. They have no problem forking over $9k for lenses. It's asides 45MP is actually not a lot more than 24 MP.because they prefer a little less pixels packed on the sensor.

Besides 45 MP is not a lot more than 24 MP. It's really only a 25% increase in horizontal resolution. It only provides a marginal extra increase in cropping ability. The number is rather misleading for real world usage and 24 MP is not as far off from 45 MP as it may seem.
 
Are Canon ever going to eventually abandon micro HDMI in their mirrorless cameras? Even the R5C ended up having micro HDMI, smh.
 
That HDMI thing..for some reason its never bothered me. But thats about segmentation of the camera.

If I were on a job and the director wanted a picture Id say.. this camera doesnt have an output. Thats why we have the C200

And that is it ..trying to find the place for it knowing the limitations but not letting them bother you.

I mean even big hdmi out of the side of a c70 or sony is so totally terrible that really none of these cams have an output you can trust.
 
The micro HDMI port does suck. I get around it by always adding a cage and a HDMI clamp to protect the port but it's annoying to have to deal with that. Cages and HDMI clamps are pretty darn affordable these days so not a big deal. I would suggest getting a cage anyway. I had a part snap in half that a camera was attached to recently. Camera took a tumble on the cement ground and the cage saved its life. We never expect accidents like that to happen and we can be super careful but stuff happens. Guess a R6 and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 was just too much for it after an entire day and the part made of plastic snapped in half. Totally my fault for trusting a weak support system but there it is. A cheap cage can really save your butt.
 
morgan_moore said:
That HDMI thing..for some reason its never bothered me. But thats about segmentation of the camera.

If I were on a job and the director wanted a picture Id say.. this camera doesnt have an output. Thats why we have the C200

And that is it ..trying to find the place for it knowing the limitations but not letting them bother you.

I mean even big hdmi out of the side of a c70 or sony is so totally terrible that really none of these cams have an output you can trust.
Click to expand...

Yeah HDMI in general is not a professional connection. It's why we have SDI. Even a full-size can pop out or the port could be damaged by yanking out the cable and really bad angles. It's more robust than micro HDMI but it's far from perfect. Even a full size HDMI should technically utilize a clamp on a cage to avoid accidents.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Yes, nice camera but a little too late to have a market impact...
Click to expand...

Even worse, this lowers the chances of Canon migrating its 45 MPX R5 sensor into a lower price model, albeit without 8K. Fuji came out with a $2,000 40 MPX 8K HX2 and soon thereafter with a $1,700 40 MPX XT-5 without 8K. In terms of market reception, it's difficult to accept a $2,500 24 MPX unit while already having a $1,700 40 MPX one, even for those in the Canon ecosystem already.

Of course, with the first CP+ in several years coming up in February, there may be more models on the horizon from nearly everyone.

PS. I brought up R6 the A7RV thread, that sort of became a hodgepodge of camera release announcements. NorBro's reaction was the same as in his post #2. With which I concur. R6 is a decent camera but probably $500 overpriced. Panasonic GH-6 with similar specs, albeit with an MFT sensor, is currently offered for $1,700 and was temporarily even $200 less.

PPS. Canon has a proprietary right not to license its mount to the third parties but that makes even less competitive visavis Sony, which avails a decent selection of Sigma and Tamron glass for anyone not looking to invest in a G-Master item.
 
Last edited:
I never cared about the micro HDMI unless it was the only source of recording. Because (1) I was almost never in any rough environment where I'm getting bumped around or the camera was to lose the connection and (2) it would 99% of the time be used for monitoring but 99% of the time I didn't use a monitor if I was using a stills camera for video because the point was to stay small and light and fly around without attention.
 
thats what im saying.. if im keeping it low profile I wont be using a monitor. so the connection doesnt matter.

but the reality is this cam could be hooked up to a zoom call or mounted high at a public performance

either way a proper connector should be there on any cam over $1500

im just gonna test the r6 vs my c200.. about time to actually know what I have!
 
DLD said:
Even worse, this lowers the chances of Canon migrating its 45 MPX R5 sensor into a lower price model, albeit without 8K. Fuji came out with a $2,000 40 MPX 8K HX2 and soon thereafter with a $1,700 40 MPX XT-5 without 8K. In terms of market reception, it's difficult to accept a $2,500 24 MPX unit while already having a $1,700 40 MPX one, even for those in the Canon ecosystem already.

Of course, with the first CP+ in several years coming up in February, there may be more models on the horizon from nearly everyone.

PS. I brought up R6 the A7RV thread, that sort of became a hodgepodge of camera release announcements. NorBro's reaction was the same as in his post #2. With which I concur. R6 is a decent camera but probably $500 overpriced. Panasonic GH-6 with similar specs, albeit with an MFT sensor, is currently offered for $1,700 and was temporarily even $200 less.

PPS. Canon has a proprietary right not to license its mount to the third parties but that makes even less competitive visavis Sony, which avails a decent selection of Sigma and Tamron glass for anyone not looking to invest in a G-Master item.
Click to expand...

Now you know I am a long time Panasonic user and love their cameras. I just don't see the GH6 and R6 mk2 in the same league. The GH6 is on sale because it's just not selling very well. It was also too little too late. An impressive camera but the industry seems to have moved on to FF. You know I don't always agree with that and think m43 is a fine format but alas so have I. I'm still not sure a sensor size should directly equal a higher cost but it is what it is. With that said the GH6 probably should cost more right now. It's priced the way it is to help spark sales. Canon for whatever doesn't feel they need to do that. Maybe they don't because the R6 did well with photographers from what I can tell. It kind of flopped in the video world but I belong to a lot of Canon photo groups that love the R6. Especially in the wedding photo space and portraits.

As for Fuji I see them in a similar situation as Panasonic. Both make darn good cameras but they are struggling. I just don't see as guaranteed of a future with Fuji or Panasonic anymore. At least Fuji mostly sticks to their APSC bread and butter while Panasonic sort of let m43 sit stagnant while they played around with their FF adventure.

I just feel safer with Canon or Sony at this point and at the time Sony did nothing for me with their limited 10bit options. If I was going to spend $3,500 for a camera it was going to be the R5 instead.
 
not wanting to divert the thread too much it seems a simple test only leads one to test more.
clearly the r6 is not 'proper'' log - way more saturation and also seems to muzz the highlights as seen on the reflection on the mug.
r6 also seems to take a deeper shadow dig.. or was that because of the higher (lost highlight)
hmmm.

https://youtu.be/DG--4PkQdm4
 
morgan_moore said:
thats what im saying.. if im keeping it low profile I wont be using a monitor. so the connection doesnt matter.

but the reality is this cam could be hooked up to a zoom call or mounted high at a public performance

either way a proper connector should be there on any cam over $1500

im just gonna test the r6 vs my c200.. about time to actually know what I have!
Click to expand...

Agreed. Micro HDMI should not even exist. Is it even used anywhere besides cameras? Why is it even a standard? The HDMI specification should just get rid of it at this point. One trick I do to help removability is buy little HDMI to micro HDMI adapters and clamp those into the port. This way I can unplug my HDMI cables as needed and just keep the adapter part of the camera itself. Im turning the crap port into a useful port. Something like this.

https://www.amazon.com/Twozoh-Adapt...fix=hdmi+to+micro+hdmi+adapter,aps,143&sr=8-9
 
morgan_moore said:
not wanting to divert the thread too much it seems a simple test only leads one to test more.
clearly the r6 is not 'proper'' log - way more saturation and also seems to muzz the highlights as seen on the reflection on the mug.
r6 also seems to take a deeper shadow dig.. or was that because of the higher (lost highlight)
hmmm.

https://youtu.be/DG--4PkQdm4
Click to expand...

White balance and exposure do not seem the same between the two. That might help get them closer. I tend to find the saturation of clog-3 on the R6 more subtle vs when I shoot HDR PQ which is very punchy and vibrant.
 
You don't even need to test the C200 against the R6, just check YouTube. There is no comparison; proper C200 filming and handling of its images produces greatly better results than the R6 in terms of subtly soft cinematic quality (which I hope wouldn't surprise anyone).

Sam, even your clip of the girl in the brewery or wherever from the other month shows off this IQ.

The R6 is a high-quality video camera, video. Which is okay and just perfect for many, but the non-sharpening and processing in the C200 contributes to its MSRP.

Canon could easily do this with a $2500 R6 but for obvious rea$on$ won't.

___


And if you dumb down a camera, you can make anything match. The C200's 8-bit files are worse than anything the R6 offers.
 
morgan_moore said:
only canon and sony have sticky eye auto focus (sony more I guess)

this is so super important that it renders the others rubbish for 90% of uses and users.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was not on board the whole DPAF train for years. I started off with ENG cameras that had no AF at all. Just couldn't see what the heck the big deal was. Now that I have it it's really hard to go back to anything else. I still manual focus a lot but having AF I can really say is dependable is huge. The DPAF alone on the R6 makes it worth $2,500 over the GH6 for $1,700. Forget the amazing sensitivity, color and depth of field possible on the R6 vs the GH6. It's really no contest from an aesthetic perspective. The GH6 has more video options which is cool but I just have no desire at all to go back to Panasonic or the GH6. I still have a P4k and I love it but once I get a R6 mk2 and Atomos updates their support for it I may sell it and just use 6k ProRes raw to my Ninja V in the future instead. The P4k is cumbersome enough to make adding the Ninja V to the R6 not a big issue. Plus I love having the larger 5" screen and the better exposure tools vs whats on the R6. The R6 combined with a Ninja really fills a lot of gaps. Having 6k ProRes Raw I can stay right in FCP will be huge. Sure not a true cinema camera. I have a 5" loupe just for the Ninja V and it's amazing how good it looks and how easy it is to shoot with. My R6 has a 5" EVF in HDR which looks stunning with HDR PQ or Clog3. My only issue is the lack of physical buttons on the Ninja V to turn on/off exposure tools. Sucks to remove the loupe all the time.
 
Thomas Smet said:
...


I just feel safer with Canon or Sony at this point and at the time Sony did nothing for me with their limited 10bit options. If I was going to spend $3,500 for a camera it was going to be the R5 instead.
Click to expand...

I don't think we disagree much (GH-6 has had several firmware upgrades along the way). But my point on lens licensing remains - by locking out third parties, Canon really creates a monopoly on its ecosystem and, with its market share, can command premium pricing on its gear. That is something to be aware of when making the plunge.
 
the trouble with hdmi clamps or whatever is imagine this situation..

small camera mounted on car bonnet (hood)
hdmi to monitor to agree composition with director
unplug hdmi
car drives off and plays the scene
return
plug in hdmi
watch playback
repeat

here is hdmi is being continually plugged/unplugged and clamp would not work

--

my pi boards have micro hdmi and it is perfect on a computer the size of a bank card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top