I recently picked up a mint 5D Mark IV with grip (for a frankly ridiculous price) and have been shooting with it a bit. Nothing serious, just having fun.
Out of curiosity, I recently compared the DPReview image quality tests of this camera with the R6 Mark III, since they are so close in resolution.
I was honestly shocked at the substantial increase in apparent sharpness in the R6 III files. The 5D Mark IV files look frankly soft by comparison. You can see that here (you will have to manually select the R6 III to compare):
In particular, look at the fine details in the sepia etching when comparing the RAW captures.
At first, I thought the difference might be due to the lens, as DPReview has always used the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM for its Canon DSLR tests, while the R bodies are tested with the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM. However, looking at the same test for the 5DS R shows a very high level of sharpness with the EF 85mm f/1.8. So clearly, the lens (when stopped down to f/5.6) is keeping up with the even more demanding sensor.
It seems that maybe the 5D Mark IV has a very aggressive low-pass filter that is robbing these files of the finest detail?
To be fair, I can't say that I ever noticed a problem in the many thousands of images I shot with this camera back when I owned a pair of them new. So, this is maybe academic and, in any case, not relevant to most of us who have moved onto mirrorless cameras.
One thing I can say (based on these published tests) is that the R6 Mark III seems to produce very detailed images. It's rather impressive in fact.
Yet there is no talk of the R6iii here, one question about battery drain recently. Does anyone here even own one, apart from me? ...I've never seen a camera of this level seemingly disappear into nothing 😶🌫️
thedruid wrote:
Yet there is no talk of the R6iii here, one question about battery drain recently. Does anyone here even own one, apart from me? ...I've never seen a camera of this level seemingly disappear into nothing 😶🌫️
I think it is maybe due to a combination of factors.
First, the R6mk2 was a very popular camera and a lot of owners may not see the mk3 as enough of an upgrade to justify the higher selling price, and for new prospective buyers the R6mk2 are now selling at pretty decent discounts.
Second, the new R6mk3's initial selling price of $2799 is not that far off from the current discounted R5mk2's $3899. So people looking to save money will gravitate to an R6mk2 on discount. Those who are in it for the "latest and greatest" may find a way to justify going up to the R5mk2 price-wise.
Third, the state of the economy and inflation are...not in a good place right now for many people. Hanging out at my local high-traffic camera shop recently and talking to the salespeople I'm familiar with, they've noted two trends. Those hit hardest by the economy have either postponed camera buying, or are shopping for the more affordable lower-tier models.Those not affected by the economy (or, in some cases, doing well in spite of it) are moving towards the higher models.
This is just a statistical sample of one, albeit a very popular, local shop.
I agree with the comment regarding absence of discussion about the R6 Mark III on this forum. I'm an experienced amateur but new to this camera and to Canon, and was surprised how difficult it was to find any information for this model on this site.
I'll say that when I shot a rented 5D IV against my old 6D, the increase in resolution for outputs was minimal. The camera wasn't any 'sharper', etc. Granted I think this applies to all Canon DSLRs short of specifically the 5Ds R. It was a very intentional decision on Canon's part to use a strong AA filter as software solutions to deal with the resulting artifacts were non-existent until recently.
For the R6 III - I think it's a testament to how good the R6 II is. While the R6 III is absolutely the better camera even for stills (higher resolution + higher readout speed for AF / less rolling shutter), most of the advances / upgrades are really video oriented. Great for hybrid shooters that don't hang out here!
Good comments all, I just wonder about Canon in general, maybe it's just here on FM, but the amount of activity on the board here is very low for a company that claims to be King of MILC each year. Interesting that a thread about your Canon legacy had dozens of Canon users respond, but most never post/engage with an image. Is everyone on reddit?
I couldn't say. I could say what I think about where Canon discussion might be, but what I will say is that what I think is biased and that I don't have the tools to really answer the question credibly.
Also Canon doesn't just make those claims; they have the sales and marketshare to back them up. You'd think that social media presence of their users would track, but maybe not?
I had a similar experience when upgrading from the 5DIII to R6. Despite the loss of a couple of MP, the R6 images were sharper. The was attributed to the less aggressive AA filter on the R6. In real world shooting, the more accurate AF and better noise performance of the R6 also contribute.
Thanks for that observation, Gary. It would certainly appear that AA filter strength has been reduced or greatly refined with Canon's mirrorless cameras. I'm getting a lot of moire on fabrics with all the models I've used for a while: R6, R6II, R5II.
I've also noticed that Canon's SOOC jpegs are much better quality from their mirrorless cameras and most recent DSLRs, compared to 10-15+ years ago. SOOC jpegs were previously so soft, IMO, it was a motivating factor for me to want to shoot RAW (among other reasons) for most applications.
As for the R6III: I can only speak for myself in that I was very interested in it, pre-announcement. The resolution bump for me was in an ideal range of more, but not too much for most of my use cases. The deal-killer was the non-stacked sensor with only marginally improved readout speed compared to the R6II. Having extensively used, but not purchased the R5II prior to the R6III release, I found the R5II noticeably more responsive when photographing sports than the R6II (its speed picking up and recognizing subjects those times I would use subject/face/eye detection/tracking). I was concerned that given its market position and the 'corner cutting' inherent in the 6 series vs. the 5 series, that the R6III would not see a comparable bump in responsiveness over the R5II. So I bit the bullet and bought the R5II once the R6III was released, primarily for its responsiveness and not really for 45MP, which is mostly overkill for me. But one aspect of 45MP that I do appreciate at times when I deliver SOOC jpegs, is that APS-C at 17MP is a very flexible resolution compared to the resulting ~9MP crop out of a 24MP FF sensor and is a great built-in 'electronic teleconverter' when I otherwise would deliver medium size 24MP SOOC jpegs (or even small size 12MP jpegs, which BTW are very clean at very high ISOs because of oversampling). The R6III is a very attractive all-rounder, but if the budget allows, the R5II is a more refined and even more powerful one.
Also, this board skews towards advanced enthusiasts who appear to be more interested in models such as the R5II.
The speed of the R6 III puts it in the same class as its competitors - including the newer and impressive A7V - and not being 'fully stacked' means that it's cheaper, which fits.
Granted both the R5 II and R6 III seem to take a hit at high ISOs relative to their predecessors. The R5 II is particularly due for an update here, hopefully with faster (and more efficient!) processors so it can keep up with the Joneses too.
Hopefully the cost of some of this technology comes down. We see Sony pushing several different ways with their sensors, and I hope Canon has in mind to also explore different avenues, like:
- going higher resolution with higher readout speeds while maintaining dynamic range (see the new A7R VI)
- A global shutter sensor for consumer cameras (see the A9 III)
- An update to the R1 to increase resolution a bit to better compete with the Z8/Z9 and A1 II
But really, the big thing I'd like to see across Canon's range is faster readouts and more efficient processors. Sony really showed how compelling this can be with the A7V and now A7R VI, where battery life has gone way up and overheating has become far less of a problem in the photo bodies, even without a cooling fan.
An R6 (photo configuration) with the ability to be powered and controlled by a gimbal would be stellar when you could use its higher-resolution modes for more than short clips.
rscheffler wrote:
...But one aspect of 45MP that I do appreciate at times when I deliver SOOC jpegs, is that APS-C at 17MP is a very flexible resolution...
So, it appears that Canon has a proper 7D/7D2 successor after all. .
I agree, that sounds like it would be very handy for certain event or sports work.
I totally get you regarding the remaining drawbacks of the 6-series compared to the more expensive models, even if the R6 Mark III is competitive in its category (moreso if you are a hybrid shooter).
I think both the R6 III and the R5 II inherit the AF algorithms from the R1. However, the R6 III lacks Canon's "DIGIC Accelerator" co-processor. That, combined with the slower readout speed no doubt accounts for the lesser responsiveness you observed.
I actually gave one of my R6 Mark IIs to my son and sold off the other one in anticipation of upgrading to the Mark III. (I am currently am enjoying using the R8.) Like you, I wasn't immediately persuaded, however. In my case, it's more to do with lack of "quality of life improvements" , like a higher resolution OLED viewfinder and blackout-free shooting at something less than 40 FPS.
So I'm currently in a holding pattern trying to decide if I want to jump up to the R5 II or not. Being semi-retired these days it's mostly a discretionary purchase (for better and worse, haha).
Edit: corrected references to "R6 II" that should have said "R6 III",
Those images look a bit soft. Maybe it's the lens. I can see a clear difference when shooting with the 35L (original) compared to the 600mm F4 IS III. I shoot wildlife and sport with the 5D4 and crop heavily and the sharpness is there. I have never used a R6III.
Sharpness depends on the AA and processing. I see more aliasing in the R6 III on the DP. But it has about 10% more pixels so will look better anyways. I used the 5D IV quite a lot from release in Sept 2016 until getting the R5 in 2021. In practice I was pleased with the IQ. Processed images with the 500/4 or 600/4 were plenty sharp, though less detailed than the 5DsR I used along with the 5D IV.
5DsR shoulb be better thanks to the AA filter. Never cared for it, since has a modest AF system.
I take oinline tests vwith a grain of salt, since my old 500mm f4 was very soft on the Digital Picture's test, but stellar in actual use with 7d, 6d and 5D4.
Uarctos wrote:
5DsR shoulb be better thanks to the AA filter. Never cared for it, since has a modest AF system.
I take oinline tests vwith a grain of salt, since my old 500mm f4 was very soft on the Digital Picture's test, but stellar in actual use with 7d, 6d and 5D4.
I got a 500/4 IS in 2004 IIRC. I've had several 500/4 IS IIs, the last one made around 1920.
The original felt lighter in 2004 than the IS II does now. And I was using 1Ds IIs and later 1DS IIIs. I was younger and stronger back then. The 5D IV with 500/4 IS (and sometimes 1.4x III) produced some of my favorite images.
