Canon R6 mk2

Thomas Smet

Thomas Smet

Veteran
https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/eos-r6-mark-ii?color=Black&type=New

Kind of surprised nobody talked about this one on here. I consider this a rather significant update on the video side for a few great reasons.

1. No 30 minute record limit
2. No overheating for 4k 24p, 25p and 30p. 4k 60p still overheats after about 40 minutes. Totally fine for those who mainly use 60p for slow motion. Not so great for those that prefer the look of 60 images per second video.
3. Sensor 24 MP bumped up from 20 MP. Not a lot but it's a bit more over sampled of the 4k video.
4. Custom modes on the dial can now use video features.
5. False color in camera with a menu accessible color index with 6 colors. Purple = clipped darks, blue = almost clipped darks, green = middle gray, pink = one stop over middle gray, yellow = almost clipped highs, and red = clipped highs.
6. Five second pre record buffer to help not miss sudden moments.
7. Faster burst shooting which also means faster sensor readout meaning better rolling shutter vs the R6.
8. 1.0x crop factor using the entire sensor this time. The R6 did this odd thing where the sensor was scaled down assuming DCI 4096 wide video and then cropped to 3840 UHD video. This is what accounted for the 1.07x pro factor. Since Canon never apparently plans on adding DCI to the R6 cameras they finally made it scale assuming only UHD.
9. APSC crop mode is better. On the R6 the 5.4k sensor was cropped down to around 3.4k which then had to be scaled up to 3840 4k video. This resulted in a little extra artifacts and slightly softer than expected 4k. The APSC crop is still not 100% but it's now 3.7k scaled up apparently so it should look better.
10. Still seems to maintain the really good sensitivity despite bumping the sensor from 20 MP to 24 MP.
11. Finally there will be external ProRes Raw 6k 60p support to Atomos. This adds a whole new level of possible quality to the R6. 6k resolution and raw images with minimal compression and 4:4:4 color. Plus ProRes raw does a really good job maintaining the noise pattern making it cleaner to reduce the noise in post. Reducing noise with Neatvideo on 6k ProRes Raw then down scaling to 4k for delivery should help maintain more fine details like hair and fabric.

It is of course far from perfect but I see this as a much nice upgrade to the R6 that fills most of the gaps and complaints the original had. As a current R6 owner my list of frustrations has been greatly reduced wit this new model. I plan on getting on before summer next year. Don't need it now but I was considering getting either a R10, R7 or another R6 to add to my R6. Now I can get an even better R6 to compliment my existing R6. I will no longer have to worry about over heating or a 30 minute record limit. I may even be able to sell my P4k since I will be able to shoot FF 6k raw to my Ninja V.

Dynamic range is still likely not going to break any records and its rolling shutter is still not the best on the planet. 4k 60p can still overheat so care has to be made there for shooting real life productions that require a 60 images per second look. The odd Canon manual white balance is still annoying having to take a photo first and then use that for the white balance. Some of the tools likely still shutting off when hitting record will be annoying yet as well. I have not heard if they solved that one. I wish it didn't have a micro HDMI port either but since I always have a cage on my cameras it's really not a huge deal to protect that dinky port. Some of these annoyances I have learned to deal with. Others will still annoy me. Overall however I have been really happy with the R6 and the R6 mk2 will be even better. Looking forward to getting one in a few months.
 
All of this should have been the first R6, but per usual the incremental updates system is too lucrative to abandon.

As far as talking about it, it's nothing special. A nice camera for 2500 bucks compared to what you could get 10 years ago - but for trained eyes, trained brains the IQ is still the same as everything else for around the same price or less.

With that said, I love Canon cameras. If there is any camera I will grab and go, it will forever be a Canon (recently grabbed a R10 for very simple talking heads).
 
As an R6 owner.. that is the trade up cost.

I assume my r6 is now worth 'nothing'

So business wise it seems pretty annoying.

I get that C1, C2, C3 would be handy and clearly it is an outrage that they didnt work on the mk1

So I think Ill just pretend it didnt happen?
 
I don't know how they would stack up line by line if you compared it to the FX30 but I would lean toward the Sony. And for the money, the Pocket 6K Pro is now only $1995 and for that as well as internal ND you get all or most of the external recording benefits of the Ninja V.
 
There are many cameras that have just as many features, or more, or important different ones - but the one advantage with this one over many of those is its full-frame sensor, which is a deal breaker for some these days (has to be full-frame).
 
Very tactfully stated as usual NorBro, but worth pointing out that at the very top level, Arri has chosen to reorient sensor supremacy to the venerable S35 format. Some of what you give up with S35 also includes weight and cost, (not including the Arri :D). To some the choice of S35 is not a flaw but a feature.
 
Thank you, TR - and I've been trying to find a decently priced Amira for about a year so I'm def good with S35 at this time in my life (but who knows later since I'm demented with cameras).

However, we should acknowledge that although the orientation did take place, we really don't know the business BTS. The 35 was delayed for several years while the LF models became the world's choice.

So although S35 might again be the gold standard overnight, the new model could also just be another choice in the lineup because a good business probably would like to offer options.

If there's no new full-frame model in the next 5 years then I think we'll have a better picture of ARRI's mindset but right now I personally think they are just offering both sensor sizes to maximize profits.
 
Tom Roper said:
I don't know how they would stack up line by line if you compared it to the FX30 but I would lean toward the Sony. And for the money, the Pocket 6K Pro is now only $1995 and for that as well as internal ND you get all or most of the external recording benefits of the Ninja V.
Click to expand...

Except the P6k is slightly smaller than s35mm, Has no AF at all and no IBIS. Also cannot take photos really. While a lot of that may not be important to some people it is important to others.

In the FF space this is still the camera to beat if one must have FF. 10bit, 4:2:2 4k 60p without any crop at all. Most other FF 4k cameras can only handle 60p if using a s35mm crop of the sensor. It's also amazing how many FF cameras are just starting to get internal 10bit 4:2:2 recording formats and how few of cameras are getting external raw support. Loots of smaller sensor cameras in the m43 space are able to do all of this but not so much in the FF space.

Some of you know how I felt about FF and in some still do. I still view s35mm as the film making standard. I wish Canon and others would make higher end APSC or s35mm DSLR cameras but they still treat APSC as a budget format. Fuji gets it right but if Panasonic and Olympus have a bleak future I feel Fuji has an even worse future. In the FF space I basically see Sony, Panasonic, Canon and Nikon. We can pretty much rule out Nikon of the four. I rule out Panasonic because of the L mount which to me has little to no future. The lack of useful adapters pretty much killed the camera on arrival. That leaves Sony and Canon. Sony is nice but I feel they ignored 10bit for too long. I'm just not crazy about the overall look of Sony. I also didn't want my only option for 4k 60p to be a crop mode or the $3,500 A7S which is horrible for photos. I just saw no realistic option on the Sony side for a hybrid over sampled 4k 60p 10bit 4:2:2 camera with great decent resolution photos, great lens support, IBIS and really good color and AF. The A7S was close but it is $1,000 more than the R6 and sucks for photos. At the time Sony had no other camera capable of 10bit 4:2:2 which to me was rather pathetic.

So I went Canon which made sense for my EF lenses. Made sense since it had 4k 60p without an extra crop. Made sense since it had internal 10bit 4:2:2. Made sense since it had good IBIS and really good DPAF. For a hybrid it ticks off a lot more boxes than anything else from Sony.

The P6k is a great camera and I love my P4k but it's not a great solution for every situation. I still use my P4k but there are times when I prefer to shoot with the R6 instead. So much easier and fun to shoot with.

The R6 mk2 makes what I still consider a great camera even better. Despite its flaws. Every camera has flaws. I just feel like I picked the lesser of the evils.

The Sony FX30 is an interesting option but I really wanted to try out FF after many years shooting m43. I had a APSC camera in my transition between m43 and FF and it was nice but I figured what the heck might as well go FF this time and try it out. I feel the FX30 was too little too late as well. Came out two years after I went Canon. Not switching again.
 
NorBro said:
All of this should have been the first R6, but per usual the incremental updates system is too lucrative to abandon.

As far as talking about it, it's nothing special. A nice camera for 2500 bucks compared to what you could get 10 years ago - but for trained eyes, trained brains the IQ is still the same as everything else for around the same price or less.

With that said, I love Canon cameras. If there is any camera I will grab and go, it will forever be a Canon (recently grabbed a R10 for very simple talking heads).
Click to expand...

I agree it's not mind blowing over other options but it's still a nice competitive option. We point out lots of "oh look another camera" new releases. I feel its significant enough in the FF space to be mentioned at least.
 
Yes, nice camera but a little too late to have a market impact. Canon made their choices and whoever wanted more was shaken out of their system. Now the photo world kind of dislikes their lack of support for third party lenses with proper AF implementations. I can see both sides but I think this is driving more folks away from Canon. But they will survive as they always do.
 
NorBro said:
There are many cameras that have just as many features, or more, or important different ones - but the one advantage with this one over many of those is its full-frame sensor, which is a deal breaker for some these days (has to be full-frame).
Click to expand...

FF and 4k 60p FF without a crop which is kind of a big deal. Most other FF cameras besides the A7S have to crop to shoot 4k 60p. So for those that really want FF and 4k and 60p there are not a lot of choices out there. Especially at this price point. Even the Canon R5 cannot do over sampled 4k 60p. It has to use pixel binned standard mode or a APSC crop.

The R6 unlike the A7S is over sampled full frame full sensor 4k 60p which as far as I know is the only camera like that. The A7S of course is not over sampled and a 1:1 sensor. Just saying the R6 mk2 has many things that make it stand out.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Yes, nice camera but a little too late to have a market impact. Canon made their choices and whoever wanted more was shaken out of their system. Now the photo world kind of dislikes their lack of support for third party lenses with proper AF implementations. I can see both sides but I think this is driving more folks away from Canon. But they will survive as they always do.
Click to expand...

Personally I find the whole 3rd party lenses argument kind of silly. 3rd party lenses traditionally were not spectacular choices and had some level of compromise. That may not be true anymore but most of the Canon users I know rarely buy into 3rd party lenses for whatever reason. This new desire stems from the flood of super low cost options that are tempting.

I get it and Tamron has been pumping out some impressive options recently on the Sony side. I just don't see it as that big of a deal however. The current user frustration stems from a few lesser know lens manufacturers that illegally reverse engineered the RF mount to support electronic features. This was not blocking Tamron and Sigma and while they may still feel the pressure or whatever is holding them back there has not really been an actual lawsuit against never supporting 3rd party lenses. All legal movement so far has been towards those that hacked and ripped off code Canon had for their RF mount. Canon just like any other company does have the right to protect their IP. Unfortunately the internet like it does with just about anything today warps and twists the facts for ratings and likes. Our information today is mostly sourced by opinionated personalities who love to make guesses and present it as news.

I personally don't feel I'm really missing out on very much on the RF mount side right now. There are no 3rd party lenses that provide anything we can't already do. The beauty of RF mount is the almost perfect adapting of EF lenses as well. Since EF lenses are flooding the market there are plenty of good options out there. I personally use Tamron 24-70 G2 f2.8 and 70-200 G2 f2.8 EF mount lenses on my R6 and they work perfectly. We do have a ton of great 3rd party options for the RF mount.

If 3rd parties no longer want to make EF lenses thats on them. I personally think thats a mistake. m43, Fuji mount, Sony EF mount, cinema camera and in some limited cases L mount can all adapt EF lenses with decent results. There is still a rather decent size market out there that would buy into new 3rd party EF lenses. Especially since it's not going to be easy to support RF mount for right now. I think Tamron and Sigma are making a mistake not supporting one of the most universal lens mounts out there. As it is I know a lot of Canon RF users that are still buying Tamron f2.8 zooms in EF mount.

Thats why I think the whole no 3rd party lens support is blown out of proportion and not entirely accurate. 3rd parties can totally support RF bodies by going EF mount. Plus they have the advantage of selling those same designs to m43, cinema camera, Fuji and Sony camera users who adapt EF lenses. On the Canon APSC side R10 and R7 there is newer interest in adapting EF-S lenses and 3rd party EF lenses to fill the lack of APSC lens gap currently. Sigma had a killer set of EF-M primes that would do really well on the R7.

In my experience budget lenses are budget for a reason. Sure part of it may just be name and as much as I love my Tamrons I know there are certain advantages to getting f2.8 L series RF lenses in the future. For now they work but the AF and OS is not as good as they could be.
 
The R5 II will probably be epic. I call cameras like the R6 II from Canon 'candy traps'. Sometimes they release pretty nice cameras right before 2-3 nicer ones.

More money but for some worth the extra investment because if you're already paying $2500 for something then you might consider $3500 since it's not like a consumer only looking for a $400 point-and-shoot for grandma.
 
NorBro said:
The R5 II will probably be epic. I call cameras like the R6 II from Canon 'candy traps'. Sometimes they release pretty nice cameras right before 2-3 nicer ones.

More money but for some worth the extra investment because if you're already paying $2500 for something then you might consider $3500 since it's not like a consumer only looking for a $400 point-and-shoot for grandma.
Click to expand...

I am looking forward to see what the R5 mk2 will do. I have little interest in the current R5. It's a nice camera but I prefer the 4k 60p on the R6. I also have little to no need for 8k and it just makes the files a lot larger and more cumbersome to deal. Even on the photo side there is sometimes a thing as too many MP. With raw photos if we want to capture smaller we have to crop which isn't a great option. I would rather have a FF 20MP or 24MP around as an option when that size makes more sense.

If the R5 mk2 is amazing perhaps I will get that to compliment a R6 mk2 and then sell the R6.
 
I cant even rember why I own an r6 or why I would want an r62

i think I got to the r6 through an odd route.

id changed to canon glass and wanted something that was a bit smaller/simpler tham my new c200. something you coulduld take stills or a b angle on that canon glass...got the r6

im not yet convinced that it can match my c200 so it sits around doing bts but I dont trust it for work yet.

i spose i should do more side by side with the files so that I know where it sits.

th af is clearly amzing the rf24-105 f71. is way better than it should be

but I still dont feel it.

jello is so bad its almost better to use it in s35 mode
 
Doug Jensen said:
What??? This is complete nonsense.
Click to expand...

No it isn't and it's in particular why a lot of portrait photographers buy the R6 instead of the R5. They feel 20MP is perfect and really have zero use for the 45 MP. 45MP are also very large files. You need more space to shoot them, more time to transfer them and more power to process them. A shoot with 800+ photos that can make a big deal when there is not much to gain from having the 45 MP.

I had a 32MP camera before the R6 and as nice as it was I much prefer the R6 photos for their quick workflow. I rarely if ever miss the extra MP. I'm also not a huge fan of cropping to compensate for poor composition. Yes I may crop a little but I'm not using it as an alternative to a longer lens just to reach further. I think thats a very poor practice. We have had enough MP for most print applications for a very long time now. Even 12 MP produces great prints for many professionals.

45 MP is just not the end all solution some thing it is. There are still plenty of pros that prefer a sensor in the 20-26MP range.
 
morgan_moore said:
I cant even rember why I own an r6 or why I would want an r62

i think I got to the r6 through an odd route.

id changed to canon glass and wanted something that was a bit smaller/simpler tham my new c200. something you coulduld take stills or a b angle on that canon glass...got the r6

im not yet convinced that it can match my c200 so it sits around doing bts but I dont trust it for work yet.

i spose i should do more side by side with the files so that I know where it sits.

th af is clearly amzing the rf24-105 f71. is way better than it should be

but I still dont feel it.

jello is so bad its almost better to use it in s35 mode
Click to expand...

I don't feel it's the same league as cinema cameras either. Doesn't really pretend to be. To me the R6 is a great hybrid camera in the true meaning of hybrid. I have it because I want to shoot photos and video and a cinema camera just will not work for that. Although I am really curious to see how well FF 6k external ProRes Raw can look on the mk2. That gap may be shrunk a tiny bit more.
 
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.
 
Thomas Smet said:
No it isn't and it's in particular why a lot of portrait photographers buy the R6 instead of the R5. They feel 20MP is perfect and really have zero use for the 45 MP. 45MP are also very large files. You need more space to shoot them, more time to transfer them and more power to process them. A shoot with 800+ photos that can make a big deal when there is not much to gain from having the 45 MP.

I had a 32MP camera before the R6 and as nice as it was I much prefer the R6 photos for their quick workflow. I rarely if ever miss the extra MP. I'm also not a huge fan of cropping to compensate for poor composition. Yes I may crop a little but I'm not using it as an alternative to a longer lens just to reach further. I think thats a very poor practice. We have had enough MP for most print applications for a very long time now. Even 12 MP produces great prints for many professionals.

45 MP is just not the end all solution some thing it is. There are still plenty of pros that prefer a sensor in the 20-26MP range.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top