agreed. biggest difference is two slots for wedding photographers such as myself. that's why i got the r6. i have the rp and love it for personal use. nice smaller body.
OK, so my takeaway from this is that UA-camrs (especially those with affiliate links) are pushing the R6 and R5 hard when in fact there is trivial image quality difference between the R and R6 (which we already knew because it's the 1DX III sensor). If the R is that much brighter than the R6 you don't do a noise comparison by matching the ISO. You do it by matching the exposure, and you don't do it by comparing the pixel level noise of the higher res sensor this the image level noise of the lower. You downsample to compare the same image. Trivial differences except for the ability to crop. Clear win for the R.
Just what I thoyght! If the R is brither already, than you don't need to push the ISO higher! And to be honest the "noise" on those photos are impossible to see kkkkk
I compared the EOS R with the R5 and found, as did Potato Jet, that the R5 skews warmer/more magenta than files out of the EOS R. I also found the EOS exposes brighter. However, you said the two cameras read white balance differently but did not elaborate on how they do so. That's one of the key differences in the cameras.
Love this video overall and comparing the EOS R and R6 is something so many of us will be doing for the next while. However, I find that the overall exposure of the portrait taken on the sidewalk is higher on the EOS R when you compared noise. What I'm wondering is since the EOS R exposes brighter by default it may not need to go at as high of an ISO as the R6 in order to achieve the same overall exposure. This could result in the noise levels being much more similar at exactly the same exposure after edits then this video makes it seem.
Played with the RAW files a bit, when corrected the WB both R & R6 files look similar. I do find the R6 files are way cleaner, but I like the sharpness of the R. When taking them into LR the skin tones on the R6 are really nice and more pleasing to the eye, but that's my personal preference. I was not able to tweak the R skin tones in LR to look similar. BUT on the other hand when taking these files into Luminar 4 the R files won this battle for me and came out way better than the R6 (skin tones as well). Using the AI features on R6 it made the files way too saturated and colors came out weird for my liking (skin tones were really pink, not flattering). Maybe the software needs an update? Conclusion for me: I'm going for the R, this is enough for me coming from; 1) no touchscreen and 2) no flip out screen and 3) no eye AF So this is already a huge upgrade :D Thanks for sharing your files, this really helped me a lot!! Much appreciated.
Thanks for the detailed comparison. I have the R and if I went for an upgrade the IBIS and updated AF are key features I would appreciate. Losing 10MP in resolution is less attractive though, and on that metric the R5 looks preferable.....until you see the huge huge price difference......
The differences highlighted in this video are easily correctable in post. With the exception of the blown highlights of the R6. The R6 seems to underexpose even when you "nail" the exposure, based on how the images look in this video. In body stabilization and the animal detection would be cool to have. Same with the redundant card slots. But at the end of the day, I often found myself preferring the R images in this video. Looks like I will be keeping my R and investing in glass. I disagree with your use of "it falls apart" in this video. I own the R and I've never had an image "fall apart." I can always get it to look the way it's supposed to look.
From someone who actually used the R for 14 months before switching to the R6, the loss of resolution is minimal in real use to the point that you simply don’t notice any loss of detail unless you conduct a pixel peeping exercise. The colour science seems to be better, less noise above ISO 1600, and so easy to play with your files. Add in improved ergonomics and a focus system which is night and day better than the R. Not even comparable. Ibis brings a new dimension to using non stabilised EF primes. Very happy with my purchase.
although they have virtually the same image qualities, once you start talking about weddings etc, that's where your argument about just using the eos R falls apart. the r6 has dual card slots which as a pro you would need because having your pictures lost is not professional at all, no matter how slight the chance of a card failure is and the r6 has full HD 120, which could be very useful
Hm. The advantage of 1 full stop iso performance is eliminated by higher exposure of Eos R. I can get lower iso with Eos R with same exposition like for Eos R6. I prefer eos R colours and resolution.
Having had both the R6 and the R, I have found that my keeper/usable images out of the R6 are much higher in number than with my R thanks to the R6 IBIS, especially with my big heavy RF 85 1.2, RF 50 1.2, and RF 28-70 glass attached. Yes you pay the 10mp penalty with going R6, but my keeper rate is at least 2x what it was on the R, and that's why the R6 is still here and my R has been sold 🙂
Had same problem. Until I Started shooting in Aperture priority with minimum shutter set to 1/250 and auto iso(weddings, baptisms and all other kind of people photography). Before I would go to 1/80 with my 50RF and not gonna lie, there was a lot of blurry images. No more tho.
How can you say R6 "is a stop better", when the exposure is so drastically different? The 6400 ISO of the R is maybe 0.7 EV if not a full stop brighter. Push the R6 to 10 000 ISO to match that (or set the R at 4000 ISO) and I guarantee you the noise will look a lot more similar. Apparently Canon "did a Fuji" with the new camera's ISO. They've being doing this for years. And all the youtubers are like "But look! Look how clean is the 6400 ISO of this APS-C size sensor! Amazing!". Yeah. And the exposure is equal to another brand APS-C camera with the same aperture, same SS and 3200 ISO. What a joke.
Could this be due to the smaller sensor? And in the end the handle low lighting similar? Sorry I'm asking because I do a lot of wildlife photography with Telephoto lens that need to push ISO a bit for higher shutter speeds. And I'm debating between the R/R6. I do a lot of different photography in general but mainly wildlife/macro.
4 роки тому+1
Momchil Yordanov, you're 100% right. I'm sorry to say this, but if someone doesn't see a difference in exposure (~ 0.7 EV) and still mindlessly compares files from both cameras, he should stop doing such reviews.
Canon uses a two gain sensor for the EOS R6/R5 like Sony is doing for a longer time. That is something different to that what Fuji is doing. On www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm the Dynamic range of a sensor is measured independent from the exposure. The graphs are showing clearly, that the R6 has a better sensor than the EOS R.
4 роки тому
@@airb1976 This chart is useless because of ISO differences on both cameras (ISO 100 on R6 isn't exactly ISO 100 on EOS R; there's a diffence in exposure). The same situation is true for other ISO values. Try to read about it.
Finally!!!! Lets seeeeee. Oh cant open the r6 files. WTB DNG's! :) EDIT! Ok i did update my captureone 20 so i can play with the r6 files. Couple big things: 1. R is much brighter at the same settings, especially at high ISO. on the 6400 photo i had to go 3/4 stop higher to match exposure. On lower iso, is smaller difference. Anywhere in between 1/4 and 2/4 stops. Difference in grain is absolutely minimal, i expected HUGE HUGE difference. Bringing the r6 3/4 exposure up to match the R and then using same noise reduction on both(in capture one) you cant find difference when exported to 2080long edge jpeg. In capture one zoomed in to 300/400% i can see slightly better r6 performance but is so negligible it doesnt even matter for me, and im 100% sure non of my clients(which NO ONE EVER complained about iso) will not see the difference at all. 2. Definitely r6 has better DR, which is important. There is few times during a wedding were better DR does come to play and im happy r6 sensor does it better. Way bigger difference then with the ISO situation here. 3. r6 is greener and warmer, while R is cooler and pink-ish. Out of the box with those example i find both not to be to my liking, with little tweaking i can make both look to my liking, but i also find color depth to be better in r6. Definitely color seems smoother and does look better(for me). You can some what match but not 100%, r6 aways looked better with my type of edits. Very subjective, im still happy with the R but is nice upgrade on the r6! Overall thoughts, i fear that canon did some internal tweaking with ISO at higher levels to make it look better compared apples to apples, aka 6400 to 6400 etc etc. Which is pretty uncool and doesnt really matter because even with the R i was shooting 6400 very comfortable, i extremely rarely had to go 12800(especially with the rf 1.2 primes) but it was still shot that i was happy to give to my clients and no one ever said something about it. So r6 seems like an upgrade but not really the upgrade i was expecting in that regard. For me the DR and color seem to be the bigger step up here. I never really really loved the R colors but i was happy with them. So those two improvements seems real nice, that being said this is limited sample that im seeing so ill take that with a grain of salt. Now the big one is, would i buy one. Honestly i dont think so. Atm R is so much cheaper i just cant justify the r6. I can see my self getting r6 in a year but right now the R is just so much camera for the money you pay for. I know i know, 1 card slat and IBIS. I did also fear 1 card slot but after shooting 30 weddings with the R and many many other events my fear went away, there is still voice at the back of my head but i know 99% of the cases even if you get card failure there is companies that specialize in data recovery and they do amazing job. So its extremely hard to lose your data 100%. You may lose the last 5-10 photos taken on the card but rest is easy recoverable. On location just switch card and move on. I never had problem so far tho. Ibis i thought i miss it since i came from sony, and i use to shoot on 1/80 even sometimes 1/60. Definitely i had shots and we are talking significant amount of shots that were a bit blurry which i have still no problem delivering to my client if everything else in there is good BUT since then i decide to move to aperture priority with set min shutter of 1/250 and auto ISO and exposure compensation to +1/3 or 2/3(i find the R auto metering to underexpose all the time). Honestly 6400 on the R is good, everything less then that i dont care even. So this is how i fixed my Ibis problem too. The big one is auto focus, no i did not try r6 so i cant speak for my self. Everyone says is way better. R is not perfect, there is situation that eye auto focus is a bit clunky but spot always worked magic and had no problem there. Yes if r6 tracks eye better and doesnt jump around so much as the R in wedding scenario where there is so many faces around, the good. Lovely, but R is good enough in autofocus regard so atm its still not deciding factor to go out and buy the expensive r6. Looking forward to the r6 when i can find em used in good condition low shutter for about 2000usd. Which im positive will happen couple months after sony and nikon drop their new a74 and z6s or whatever will be named and "youtube photographers" start switching again.
I agree about the R being a very good camera. In my situation, the R is a MAJOR upgrade when switched from 60D. I am fondling, though, the IBIS and high shutter speed the R6 offers. In the back of my head, I’m trying to justify spending another 3K on camera plus battery grip..
Downloaded the files. At least for the ISO100 files, when they are manually exposure matched and zoomed to equivalent framing there is slightly more noise in the files on the R but significantly more preserved detail. There is "less noise" in the R6 files, but the characteristic of that noise is blotchier, less fine grained. I think this is likely due to the R6's baked-in, non-optional RAW noise reduction. At ISO6400, the R6 has marginally better color fidelity, although the color rendering is very different for these sensors, especially in the greens, and once this is matched manually, the gap is very small. Again, the tradeoff is fine detail, which is better preserved with the R.
I worked ont the files in lightroom, C1 and DPP and the result is that R is better IQ (contrast/3D/look) for me but R6 has better skin tone and tonality. R6 has the famous flatness of sony mirrorless with the canon skin tones. I think some people like me don't want to loose what was already in part lost in the 5D to 5D mark II revolution. yes, you had advantages (high ISO autofocus) but you lose IQ. It's the same situation here, big upgrade in handling/functionnality but loss in IQ. Sorry if you can't see that in the files, I can see it. My dream is a R6 body with a 5D classic sensor inside.
I think if you'd have reduced the exposure of the R in LR to more closely match the results of the R6, and then zoomed in the same amount as the (larger file size meant lightroom was enlarging the image more whenever you zoomed) the difference would have been negligible.
BTW I just Checked your raws in DPP. Please note that you had ALO on for the R and not for the R6. Also your picture styles are different in the cameras, and the WB are also different in cameras. Sometimes the R6 is shade whereas auto in the R, etc. Also the R WB is 1 notch towards magenta. Some of these things might not have a influence in raw, but the jpg and the starting point will be different...
The R6 and R5 underexposure is a confirmed big in Lightroom. If you open the files in DPP4 you’ll see the exposure be much closer together. Adobe said they are working on a fix.
I think for R6 it's at a level where you have to analyze it in detail with a magnifying glass to see the difference. The R5 is definitely worth the money for this one.
If you are comparing the high iso performance and the R is brighter, you should first equalise the histogram in order to compare, because the darker shadows of the R6 are hiding the noise. It would be even better if you compare them at the same output resolution... You say your wife is desaturated in the R at high iso, but actually she is a bit overexposed compared to the R6. In the R6 she is a bit too red, whereas the R retains a more natural-looking skin tone. I actually prefer the colors from the R.
@@ABarrera Got the files, thank you! It's true, adjusting WB they are pretty similar in color (although I still see the R a bit more neutral when white balanced both), but check Adobe Standard V1 in the Eos R vs Adobe Standard in the R6, better than Adobe Color to my eyes on both (just add a touch of contrast when needed). When adjusting exposure, they are the same regarding noise and dynamic range. Maybe the Eos R a tiny bit noisier, but if you display the pictures at the same size, they are pretty much identical. The R6 has IBIS and faster AF, but in IQ I think they are the same, and the Eos R has an edge in resolution and LCD monitor for less than half the price...
Just posted my review. I agree that the cameras read white balance differently. Wish it wasn’t like that because it makes it’s a bit of pain to match especially for video.
People have done that and the R5 pretty much always puts out a superior image until you start getting into the higher ISO range where the lower mp count is better. Although the R5 is still very good in low light. But at low ISO the R5 gives a sharper, cleaner image. That said, the R6 is more versatile and I would say a better value.
I have had the R about 2 years now and looking to upgrade to RF glass. We all chase 2.8s ut from what you say about stops and under exposing - it would follow that you could save by going wth F4 IS glass. . sorely tempting
I think your comparison proves, that the EOS R isn't "old iron"! Hope my R5 will come soon (ordered on 3. August, but here in germany it's difficult to get one) and stay with the R as backup.
From the exposure differences in your comparison, could you say that the r6 at 6400 is really at 5000 (or 4000 even), which is why it looks cleaner? Maybe so.
4 роки тому+2
Rob Kramer, you're 100% right. I'm sorry to say this, but if someone doesn't see a difference in exposure (~ 0.7 EV) and still mindlessly compares files from both cameras, he should stop doing such reviews.
I am so on the fence. Question: since the R6 seems to expose darker you would have to push the exposure a bit more to get the same brightness level as the R that you are comparing to. Doesn’t that introduce more noise in the R6? Would have loved to see a side by side with the R6 exposure matched in post to the R and then compare noise at high ISO. The 6 seems quite a bit darker and that would def make it important to push it in post.
Don't be on the fence. If you have the money for it the R6 is the superior camera and honestly I would say it's a much better value than the R5. It's not just about image quality (of which both the R and R6 are pretty much equal). The R6 is easier to use, has improved features, and will give you a much higher ratio of "keeper" images. Pretty much all images out of any camera need some work done in post, just depends on what exactly that work is. And personally I find that the workflow for R6 images is faster than the R. I just find I don't really need to adjust them as much, which was actually hard to get used to at first. For video the R6 has a much smaller 4k crop (1.07x vs 1.7x of the R). And it's 1080 is VERY good where in most cases people won't really be able to tell the difference between that and 4k unless they're specifically looking for that difference. If you already own the R and are happy with it, don't rush to upgrade because it's still a very good camera. Or if there is a particular lens you want, saving money by getting the R and putting that money saved towards a dream lens is better than buying any body since the lens will last long after the R, R6 and R5 become obsolete.
Thanks for making the video Alex. I was finally able to rent an R6 and I did the same comparison with my R and to my amazement, the R6 was sharper than the R. I couldn't believe it. I thought the more pixels the camera had the sharper It would be but no. Weird. If anyone is concerned on the dip in megapixels, don't be, the R6 looks amazing and sharper than the R.
The only real practical reasons one would need more MP is either to do a lot of cropping, which is handy if shooting in places where you can't just move your position (events and such) OR they're printing out large images (poster size and larger) that need to be viewed very closely. If someone is showing photos online, or printing them for like albums or to be viewed at a fair distance (generally the larger the image, the farther people view it from. Such as billboards) then the 20mp of the R6 is MORE than enough. And it's worth noting that it's not just any ol' 20mp sensor but actually an excellent one.
The Adobe colour profile does all sorts of things to the raw file in the background and does it differently for different model cameras. Your not seeing the true exposure, there's a tone curve applied (which is hidden) and there's sharpening added as well. For the masses doing a quick edit this may not matter so much but when doing a critical image quality comparison between cameras you couldn't pick a worse way.
Alex: Looks like the EOSR is more than two stops brighter than the R6 at same ISO? Is it possible that’s how Canon is able to provide better dynamic range (changing the level of gain?) I never liked working with my CR3 files (vs arw) and has high expectations for the R5... Now, is the new file better or a gimmick?
Have the R and R5; still in the return window for the R5. Revisiting R6 vids to see if, perhaps, that option would be a better way to go for a hybrid application. After the 2nd viewing, I think the two cameras are a bit closer than what your comparison shows, but still can see that the R6 is still better. If the R6 was scaled up or the R5 scaled down so that the resolution was the same, the noise issue would have appeared less IMHO. And then, if exposure compensation was used on one or the other of the cameras so that the files were equivalent in brightness SOOC, I'm not clear if that would have helped or hurt the R vs R6. I.e., if I knew my camera had a tendency to expose bright, it makes sense to trim it back and vice versa. In any event, thanks again! Really enjoy your style of reviews.
LETS TALK ABOUT WHITE BALANCE!!!!!!!!! Thats something people are not really talking about but its a big deal what were your findings when you uploaded the images into lightroom? with NO changes what so ever. and sometimes even which after switching to kelvin, the eos r gives me weird skin tones or overall colors when the scene has a lot of greens and its a cloudy day. moody I always felt that the EOS R shoots really hot, meaning the exposure is always brighter than I'm aiming for or even want. whats your take on that? Also, I feel the R6 sensor is very similar to 5DMK3 IMO
R6 seems to have the same color characteristics of the Canon second line, this colors always have on 20D, 40D...6D...and I don't like it!! Hope my R6 still on backorder until I decide, because instead to buy a R5 I will stick with the R.
Of all the Canon I have used (40D,50D, 60D, 70D, 77D, 80D, 7D, 5D, 5DIII, 6D, 6D II and a lot of rebels xxxD), I love the colors of 40D, 5D and 5D III the most (I think it's due to LR's translation). How close is R6 to 5DIII or 5D?
Pixelpeeping isn’t what’s important. It’s the use of the camera. For landscape photos the R is much better due to its higher resolution and you overcome the dynamic range in post editing, for weddings I would say R6 has an advantage and the same goes for sport and nature where R6 is better because of the AF and speed. For portrait I prefer the higher resolution with the R. It’s the R5 I want, that’s the holy grail!
Not sure about R6 since I don't own one, but as for R5 there's known and confirmed issue with Lightroom that LR renders R5 CR3 files darker than it supposed to be. Adobe promises to fix this.
The differences in image quality from canon cameras from 2012 (canon 6d, canon 1dx) till present are minimum. The difference is in the AF area. If you downsample the image from eos R , to mach thr resolution and expsoser from the R6, I'm shure there is not much difference left...
lol people need to stop dancing around the elephant in the room the eos r has sharper pictures however the r6 has more tools in its arsenal to get a quality photo.. quick af...etc
Try to print 20 by 30 image of an eagle for example and you will see a substantial difference in details with those 10 extra megapixels on EOS R. I don’t want to deal with the incorrect white balance on the R6 when I come Back from Iceland with 6000 plus images to work on
I have the R6 MK2 and I have also kept my R. MPs do matter a lot and I have used both DSLRS in different situations. The R is actually a slower DSLR, and it has to be, it has 30 MPS unless it had todays latest AF2, newer sensor as the R6MK2 with the latest X processer and so on. The R5 is the best all-around DSLR in the Cannon range in my opinion. The R is a slow DSLR but 8FPS is not extremely slow- it is just about right to create a workable balance between 30 MPS and Mechanical shutter speed. My R it is much slower compared to my R6MK2 by a country mile though. But, I normally use my R for portraits in certain situations where my R6MK2 is not giving me enough of what I want and that can be down to the difference in MPs. This is why I use both DSLRS as a combination. I use my R6MK2 for normally almost everything and I mostly prefer the R6MK2 when I am on the go, or shooting moving subjects; I get 40 FPS in electronic shutter, and it is perhaps the closest thing to the R3 stacked sensor. The MK2 is fast! The Dynamic range on the R6MK2 as well as the R6 is better than the R but the R in my opinion produces better white-balance and adds more detail to images. It may not be as sharp or fast but there is always going to be a trade-off no matter what you buy and in the R's case, it will give you more MPS.. The images which my R gives me are amazing. It is a battle-hardened and proven DSLR for producing great full-frame images. It will produce a better image in some situations than even my R6MK2! And that is due to higher MPS which is why I decided to keep it for B Roll, back up and/or as an alternative if im not getting enough detail due to a lower MP count in some situations. My R solves that problem for me. I don't use it as much but whenever I need to try getting soemthing which looks different from its images, it never lets me down. 30 MPs are great to have! Why wouldn't anyone want the R? What else are you going to be buy in the Cannon range with a lot of MPS, R5? It costs a lot. I was not willing to give my R away, I decided to sell my R6 instead to upgrade to an MK2. My advice is this. get a fast DSLR (R6MK2 or R6 or R8) If you cannot afford the R3 - Fast cameras will normally provide you with a lesser MPS count. If you cannot afford the R5 then get the EOS R as a cover-up to solve MPS issues. You will not be disappointed!!! Focus on the 'combination' nather than just a single camera. Every shooter needs at least 2 DSLSRs, EOS R for me if the best backup camera on the planet. Or else, for the monies I have paid, I would have just brought an R5 or an R3, but an R6M2/R, R8/R or even R6/R is a great combination!
You said a couple of times that you don't like to use flash but prefer to keep detail in the sky and background. That is confusing. I expose for the sky and background and then use flash to expose for the subject.
I would better invest in some 1.2 RF lens than upgrade to R6. EOS R no need to under exposure, it’s classic Canon good in highlights recovery vs shadows recovery Sony types
I did my very first shoot today with my brand new (R6 + RF 70-200 F2.8) and HOLY SH*T! This is an absolute night & day difference over the (Canon 6D + EF 70-200 F4L IS) I had before. Ok that's also 7000$CAD vs ~3000$CAD but you can really tell a major diff. My ratio of good images is way higher, focus is 1000x better and faster, having up to 8 stops of stability is totally crazy, and now I can just let that ISO fully confident at "Auto" knowing that even when going pretty high it is still almost entirely free of noise, and I'd rather make sure I have no blur in the first place. Everything I would take in picture would give good results even when not even trying :o QUESTION: There's a setting in the R6 called (Reduce Noise at high level of ISO). Is it better to use a noise reduction PRE-Lightroom, directly into the RAW file or the result is more efficient from Adobe Lightroom and ur better not use the one from the camera and only fix noise through Adobe instead? Usually fixing stuff Pre, is better than Post, so I'm asking since there's just so much more features and settings on the R6 than 6D.
@@sonicvboom Well, just about anything you could do BEFORE is obviously gonna be better than after. It's like the saying that goes by "Prevent rather than having to fix something". Ok in french it is much better lol, but you get the point. The less you "F-up" before, the less you have waste time in postprod, which is the last I hate the most as it's so time consuming and boring. I set a max AUTO ISO limit to I think 6400, then a manual maximum if 128000 and I configure my custom settings so it jumps by steps of 1 stop for my ISO control such as "100-200-400-800...". Far quicker and easier to control the light than with 1/4 stops etc. I find the camera often use too much than necessary cause it seems to think you have no lens with stabilizer so I'm starting to switch much more often from An to Full Manual which I've never done in 12 years from having DSLR cameras. Noise is already so much better with full frames but also far better on the R6 than my previous 6D. In Lightroom when I import my raw I always select "Adobe Color + Lens Correction + Noise Reduction" and it automatically choose the right amount according to the ISO used and is so far never too much! Gone are the time where I had to manually do it per pictures!
@@PanzerIV88 I get what you're saying... But you still haven't directly answered my question though: Did you, or did not use the "Reduce Noise at High ISO" setting on the *R6* camera? If yes, do you find it helpful? Or were your images a bit too "soft" when you activated that setting?
@@sonicvboom I don't use that feature, if I remember well from reading the whole damn camera super thick manual, it said it only works for JPEG anyway. Dont use it.
The highlights were are a little crunch as well on my EOS R as well, compared to my 1DXII. I'm doing a lot of commercial product photography of lighting so it was more apparent to me than portraits of people. Thanks for the comparison video! I just picked up an R6. I'm still waiting for the R5 to be in stock. Which camera do you prefer?
Image fidelity comes from adequate sensor saturation and not from added algorithmic gain , i also need the extra 50% resolution for landscape purposes , i think the R6 is a great video camera though.
Perhaps others have mentioned this in their comments, but the R6's focusing accuracy and its ability to focus on vehicles, animals and bird (with eye detection) leaves the worthy original R behind. I didn't recall this review focusing (pun intended) on the focusing speed and accuracy differences.
Simply put for basic portrait photography the R is a better value , I personally went with the r6 for the 5 axis stabilization which helps when lowering your shutter speed in dim situations and for the 1080 p 120fps . But if you’re not going to use those options then the 1000 does seem unreasonable
for a regular every day individual who's not into photography, the R would be the bang for the buckets. - they won't be able to tell the differences. for the stops, you can always turn up or down.
Actually I would say the R6 is still the better option because one, as Rip Dingers pointed out if someone is spending that kind of money and they don't care about photography they might as well just get an R6 (or R5). And even if they don't care at the time of purchase, they might develop an interest in photography in which case the R6 is better as it will provide better options as their interest develops without them having to buy a new camera.
@@ABarrera Thanks! mine was from a default results of Canon Ambassador in Japan with perfect white balance and indoor studio with perfect light, for depend on your starting point and outside environment the color shall shift.
4:47 Blowing out the highlights is never a good idea and so far every camera I've used struggled with highlight recovery a lot more than with shadow recovery. That even goes for the older Canon sensors. That said, at least according to Gordon at Cameralabs, the R6 actually does fair pretty well in highlight recovery. -> ua-cam.com/video/O6E6aGswzcE/v-deo.html
R6 is killer deal, but that 20 mp puts me little of. Is not that 30 mp is huge either, but still. R is probably more usable for landscape, macro, portraits. Probably everything except sport and wildlife. And of course R isn't great for video but it is still usable for youtube and social media. Just don't shoot Hollywood features with it. High ISO is something that i personally don't use so much except if i go for certain esthetics.
Why do we care and pixel peep so much about noise? 10 years ago, yes, the noise was terrible, but today the amazing ISO’s we get.. the tiny, minute amount of noise almost looks cool - has character. Gives a photo some vibe.. I prefer the R photographs to the R6.
I had a look at the Raw files. To me it seems as if the R6 has maybe a slight advantage in terms of details. Maybe this has to do with Canon's new AA filter or the IBIS reducing micro shake. Anyway it's great to see them being close in resolution! Thanks for the great content, always appreciated!!
well i want a good camera that's full frame one that takes great pictures and video. i was told to buy this camera so i want to know a lot about this camera. i want to buy the tamron 24-70 and the tamron 35-150. you said it's only good for taking pictures and not for shooting video. well please tell me a good full frame camera please so i can check it out.
The R6 is still good for video. It is just not good for people wanting to do long videos. Like making short films or if you're a youtube vlogger. Obviously since most youtubers do a lot of longer videos they draw attention to the fact that the R6/R5 aren't as good for that. But for most everyone else they are still good cameras for video. And they'll [hopefully] get better with more firmware updates. The photos out of the R6 are excellent. If you want a full frame that is better for video then the Sony cameras are pretty much equal too, or often way better, for video. But to be honest, it's actually really hard to find a BAD camera now.
@@Chromedbustop i just want a very nice camera with better picture quality and good in low light and fast autofocus and can record video when i want to do that
@@jeremypinder4436 I've never used the RP, but the R6 is great in low light AND it comes with many better features the RP doesn't have. Don't overthink it. If you have the money get the R6. Unless there is something VERY specific about the R or RP you want. And since you're unsure which camera you even want, the R6 is going to give you the most value.
What a joke! If you have iso 800 on R you need to have iso 1600 on R6 to get the same exposure. I dont like the how the camera companies fool people and how the youtubers helping them.
I totally agree on high ISO. I am a youth sports photographer. When shooting things like girls volleyball, I am constantly at ISOs from 6400 to 16000. The R REALLY falls apart, whereas the R6 has useable images even there!
Honestly, I can hardly tell the difference between the two. At this point we're just nitpicking the differences. If you're into video though, stick with the R6. If you need two card slots, stick with the R6. Otherwise, I think the R is a great photographer's camera at a great price if you can find one in good condition.
hmn,.. to be honest,. you should test the ISO test on Room temperature,. eos R6 was exposed darker,. probably because of exposure of the sun,. thats why it affects so much,. i feel 6400 iso on R6 is just equavalent of 1600 iso on R,. in raw sample,. i feel bad for R6 users,. if this test is really accurate,.
R looks good and not a big difference between them . R is less expensive than r6 . I will go with r 👍
agreed. biggest difference is two slots for wedding photographers such as myself. that's why i got the r6. i have the rp and love it for personal use. nice smaller body.
OK, so my takeaway from this is that UA-camrs (especially those with affiliate links) are pushing the R6 and R5 hard when in fact there is trivial image quality difference between the R and R6 (which we already knew because it's the 1DX III sensor). If the R is that much brighter than the R6 you don't do a noise comparison by matching the ISO. You do it by matching the exposure, and you don't do it by comparing the pixel level noise of the higher res sensor this the image level noise of the lower. You downsample to compare the same image. Trivial differences except for the ability to crop. Clear win for the R.
Just what I thoyght! If the R is brither already, than you don't need to push the ISO higher! And to be honest the "noise" on those photos are impossible to see kkkkk
Exactly.
The noise on the r still higher if they shoot at 100 iso
Absolutlely agree
I compared the EOS R with the R5 and found, as did Potato Jet, that the R5 skews warmer/more magenta than files out of the EOS R. I also found the EOS exposes brighter. However, you said the two cameras read white balance differently but did not elaborate on how they do so. That's one of the key differences in the cameras.
you should compare R to R6 at equivalent magnification.
Got to say in all scenarios but high ISO, I prefer the looks of the R, really tempted to go R6 but definitely not for image quality.
Love this video overall and comparing the EOS R and R6 is something so many of us will be doing for the next while. However, I find that the overall exposure of the portrait taken on the sidewalk is higher on the EOS R when you compared noise. What I'm wondering is since the EOS R exposes brighter by default it may not need to go at as high of an ISO as the R6 in order to achieve the same overall exposure. This could result in the noise levels being much more similar at exactly the same exposure after edits then this video makes it seem.
Thanks for the comparison! I'll stick with my EOS R for now
I personally prefer the color on the EOS R than the r6..
Played with the RAW files a bit, when corrected the WB both R & R6 files look similar. I do find the R6 files are way cleaner, but I like the sharpness of the R. When taking them into LR the skin tones on the R6 are really nice and more pleasing to the eye, but that's my personal preference. I was not able to tweak the R skin tones in LR to look similar. BUT on the other hand when taking these files into Luminar 4 the R files won this battle for me and came out way better than the R6 (skin tones as well). Using the AI features on R6 it made the files way too saturated and colors came out weird for my liking (skin tones were really pink, not flattering). Maybe the software needs an update?
Conclusion for me:
I'm going for the R, this is enough for me coming from; 1) no touchscreen and 2) no flip out screen and 3) no eye AF
So this is already a huge upgrade :D
Thanks for sharing your files, this really helped me a lot!! Much appreciated.
Thanks for the detailed comparison. I have the R and if I went for an upgrade the IBIS and updated AF are key features I would appreciate. Losing 10MP in resolution is less attractive though, and on that metric the R5 looks preferable.....until you see the huge huge price difference......
unless you print on billboard or you crop like hell your photos... the r6 kicks ass
The differences highlighted in this video are easily correctable in post. With the exception of the blown highlights of the R6. The R6 seems to underexpose even when you "nail" the exposure, based on how the images look in this video. In body stabilization and the animal detection would be cool to have. Same with the redundant card slots. But at the end of the day, I often found myself preferring the R images in this video. Looks like I will be keeping my R and investing in glass. I disagree with your use of "it falls apart" in this video. I own the R and I've never had an image "fall apart." I can always get it to look the way it's supposed to look.
From someone who actually used the R for 14 months before switching to the R6, the loss of resolution is minimal in real use to the point that you simply don’t notice any loss of detail unless you conduct a pixel peeping exercise.
The colour science seems to be better, less noise above ISO 1600, and so easy to play with your files. Add in improved ergonomics and a focus system which is night and day better than the R. Not even comparable. Ibis brings a new dimension to using non stabilised EF primes. Very happy with my purchase.
I can push the r6 in post and the colors are insane and details retentions is great as well specially that i shoot at night
Do some big prints , the resolution difference is substantial.
I have zero need to produce big prints, hence why it isn’t a problem
To be fair, you should raise the exposure 1/2 a stop to get same light on both exposures before comparing noice.
although they have virtually the same image qualities, once you start talking about weddings etc, that's where your argument about just using the eos R falls apart. the r6 has dual card slots which as a pro you would need because having your pictures lost is not professional at all, no matter how slight the chance of a card failure is and the r6 has full HD 120, which could be very useful
Hm. The advantage of 1 full stop iso performance is eliminated by higher exposure of Eos R. I can get lower iso with Eos R with same exposition like for Eos R6. I prefer eos R colours and resolution.
I've gotta admit, in the initial photos I liked the R better. Can't completely put my finger on it but it felt like there was better separation.
Having had both the R6 and the R, I have found that my keeper/usable images out of the R6 are much higher in number than with my R thanks to the R6 IBIS, especially with my big heavy RF 85 1.2, RF 50 1.2, and RF 28-70 glass attached. Yes you pay the 10mp penalty with going R6, but my keeper rate is at least 2x what it was on the R, and that's why the R6 is still here and my R has been sold 🙂
Had same problem. Until I Started shooting in Aperture priority with minimum shutter set to 1/250 and auto iso(weddings, baptisms and all other kind of people photography). Before I would go to 1/80 with my 50RF and not gonna lie, there was a lot of blurry images. No more tho.
agree 👌🏼
Agreed
I was thinking about replacing the R with the R6, but it doesn’t seem to be worth it.
And if you resize the R files to 20mpx?
YES
Not a big enough difference to get the R6 over the R. Thanks for your review.
These last few videos have been so important for peeps who are looking to upgrade this year
How can you say R6 "is a stop better", when the exposure is so drastically different? The 6400 ISO of the R is maybe 0.7 EV if not a full stop brighter. Push the R6 to 10 000 ISO to match that (or set the R at 4000 ISO) and I guarantee you the noise will look a lot more similar. Apparently Canon "did a Fuji" with the new camera's ISO. They've being doing this for years. And all the youtubers are like "But look! Look how clean is the 6400 ISO of this APS-C size sensor! Amazing!". Yeah. And the exposure is equal to another brand APS-C camera with the same aperture, same SS and 3200 ISO. What a joke.
Could this be due to the smaller sensor?
And in the end the handle low lighting similar? Sorry I'm asking because I do a lot of wildlife photography with Telephoto lens that need to push ISO a bit for higher shutter speeds. And I'm debating between the R/R6.
I do a lot of different photography in general but mainly wildlife/macro.
Momchil Yordanov, you're 100% right. I'm sorry to say this, but if someone doesn't see a difference in exposure (~ 0.7 EV) and still mindlessly compares files from both cameras, he should stop doing such reviews.
Canon uses a two gain sensor for the EOS R6/R5 like Sony is doing for a longer time. That is something different to that what Fuji is doing. On www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm the Dynamic range of a sensor is measured independent from the exposure. The graphs are showing clearly, that the R6 has a better sensor than the EOS R.
@@airb1976 This chart is useless because of ISO differences on both cameras (ISO 100 on R6 isn't exactly ISO 100 on EOS R; there's a diffence in exposure). The same situation is true for other ISO values. Try to read about it.
@ it isnt useless. Even If there is a difference of 20% between both Base ISO, the R6 will show Higher DR than the EOS R.
Finally!!!! Lets seeeeee. Oh cant open the r6 files. WTB DNG's! :)
EDIT! Ok i did update my captureone 20 so i can play with the r6 files. Couple big things:
1. R is much brighter at the same settings, especially at high ISO. on the 6400 photo i had to go 3/4 stop higher to match exposure. On lower iso, is smaller difference. Anywhere in between 1/4 and 2/4 stops. Difference in grain is absolutely minimal, i expected HUGE HUGE difference. Bringing the r6 3/4 exposure up to match the R and then using same noise reduction on both(in capture one) you cant find difference when exported to 2080long edge jpeg. In capture one zoomed in to 300/400% i can see slightly better r6 performance but is so negligible it doesnt even matter for me, and im 100% sure non of my clients(which NO ONE EVER complained about iso) will not see the difference at all.
2. Definitely r6 has better DR, which is important. There is few times during a wedding were better DR does come to play and im happy r6 sensor does it better. Way bigger difference then with the ISO situation here.
3. r6 is greener and warmer, while R is cooler and pink-ish. Out of the box with those example i find both not to be to my liking, with little tweaking i can make both look to my liking, but i also find color depth to be better in r6. Definitely color seems smoother and does look better(for me). You can some what match but not 100%, r6 aways looked better with my type of edits. Very subjective, im still happy with the R but is nice upgrade on the r6!
Overall thoughts, i fear that canon did some internal tweaking with ISO at higher levels to make it look better compared apples to apples, aka 6400 to 6400 etc etc. Which is pretty uncool and doesnt really matter because even with the R i was shooting 6400 very comfortable, i extremely rarely had to go 12800(especially with the rf 1.2 primes) but it was still shot that i was happy to give to my clients and no one ever said something about it. So r6 seems like an upgrade but not really the upgrade i was expecting in that regard.
For me the DR and color seem to be the bigger step up here. I never really really loved the R colors but i was happy with them. So those two improvements seems real nice, that being said this is limited sample that im seeing so ill take that with a grain of salt.
Now the big one is, would i buy one. Honestly i dont think so. Atm R is so much cheaper i just cant justify the r6. I can see my self getting r6 in a year but right now the R is just so much camera for the money you pay for.
I know i know, 1 card slat and IBIS.
I did also fear 1 card slot but after shooting 30 weddings with the R and many many other events my fear went away, there is still voice at the back of my head but i know 99% of the cases even if you get card failure there is companies that specialize in data recovery and they do amazing job. So its extremely hard to lose your data 100%. You may lose the last 5-10 photos taken on the card but rest is easy recoverable. On location just switch card and move on. I never had problem so far tho.
Ibis i thought i miss it since i came from sony, and i use to shoot on 1/80 even sometimes 1/60. Definitely i had shots and we are talking significant amount of shots that were a bit blurry which i have still no problem delivering to my client if everything else in there is good BUT since then i decide to move to aperture priority with set min shutter of 1/250 and auto ISO and exposure compensation to +1/3 or 2/3(i find the R auto metering to underexpose all the time). Honestly 6400 on the R is good, everything less then that i dont care even. So this is how i fixed my Ibis problem too.
The big one is auto focus, no i did not try r6 so i cant speak for my self. Everyone says is way better. R is not perfect, there is situation that eye auto focus is a bit clunky but spot always worked magic and had no problem there. Yes if r6 tracks eye better and doesnt jump around so much as the R in wedding scenario where there is so many faces around, the good. Lovely, but R is good enough in autofocus regard so atm its still not deciding factor to go out and buy the expensive r6.
Looking forward to the r6 when i can find em used in good condition low shutter for about 2000usd. Which im positive will happen couple months after sony and nikon drop their new a74 and z6s or whatever will be named and "youtube photographers" start switching again.
I've opened my r6 files in lightroom since day 1 what program are you using ?
Hero Shotz capture one 20 but I did not bother to upgrade to very latest version.
I agree about the R being a very good camera. In my situation, the R is a MAJOR upgrade when switched from 60D. I am fondling, though, the IBIS and high shutter speed the R6 offers. In the back of my head, I’m trying to justify spending another 3K on camera plus battery grip..
Downloaded the files. At least for the ISO100 files, when they are manually exposure matched and zoomed to equivalent framing there is slightly more noise in the files on the R but significantly more preserved detail. There is "less noise" in the R6 files, but the characteristic of that noise is blotchier, less fine grained. I think this is likely due to the R6's baked-in, non-optional RAW noise reduction. At ISO6400, the R6 has marginally better color fidelity, although the color rendering is very different for these sensors, especially in the greens, and once this is matched manually, the gap is very small. Again, the tradeoff is fine detail, which is better preserved with the R.
I worked ont the files in lightroom, C1 and DPP and the result is that R is better IQ (contrast/3D/look) for me but R6 has better skin tone and tonality. R6 has the famous flatness of sony mirrorless with the canon skin tones. I think some people like me don't want to loose what was already in part lost in the 5D to 5D mark II revolution. yes, you had advantages (high ISO autofocus) but you lose IQ. It's the same situation here, big upgrade in handling/functionnality but loss in IQ. Sorry if you can't see that in the files, I can see it. My dream is a R6 body with a 5D classic sensor inside.
Then get the R5, lol. Problem solved. 🤙🤙
I think if you'd have reduced the exposure of the R in LR to more closely match the results of the R6, and then zoomed in the same amount as the (larger file size meant lightroom was enlarging the image more whenever you zoomed) the difference would have been negligible.
Does the noise matter and will customers be looking at all those staff?
The R was amazing like 2 months ago and now for some reason it sux just because the R5 and R6 came out.
Who said it sucks?
@@ABarrera I did.
BTW I just Checked your raws in DPP. Please note that you had ALO on for the R and not for the R6. Also your picture styles are different in the cameras, and the WB are also different in cameras. Sometimes the R6 is shade whereas auto in the R, etc. Also the R WB is 1 notch towards magenta. Some of these things might not have a influence in raw, but the jpg and the starting point will be different...
Good call out, Lightroom also fixed the exposure issue in Lightroom with the latest update.
The R6 and R5 underexposure is a confirmed big in Lightroom. If you open the files in DPP4 you’ll see the exposure be much closer together. Adobe said they are working on a fix.
I need to look into this, thanks for the heads up!
I think for R6 it's at a level where you have to analyze it in detail with a magnifying glass to see the difference. The R5 is definitely worth the money for this one.
Does the Bokeh of the RF 50mm has a slight swirl?
Did you use different metering modes? That could be one of the reasons why the exposures come about different
Metering modes do not have any impact when shooting in manual. Both cameras were shot the exactly the same
If you are comparing the high iso performance and the R is brighter, you should first equalise the histogram in order to compare, because the darker shadows of the R6 are hiding the noise. It would be even better if you compare them at the same output resolution...
You say your wife is desaturated in the R at high iso, but actually she is a bit overexposed compared to the R6. In the R6 she is a bit too red, whereas the R retains a more natural-looking skin tone.
I actually prefer the colors from the R.
Fee free to check out the files, the R6 has little to no noise.
@@ABarrera Got the files, thank you! It's true, adjusting WB they are pretty similar in color (although I still see the R a bit more neutral when white balanced both), but check Adobe Standard V1 in the Eos R vs Adobe Standard in the R6, better than Adobe Color to my eyes on both (just add a touch of contrast when needed). When adjusting exposure, they are the same regarding noise and dynamic range. Maybe the Eos R a tiny bit noisier, but if you display the pictures at the same size, they are pretty much identical. The R6 has IBIS and faster AF, but in IQ I think they are the same, and the Eos R has an edge in resolution and LCD monitor for less than half the price...
Just posted my review. I agree that the cameras read white balance differently. Wish it wasn’t like that because it makes it’s a bit of pain to match especially for video.
I sold my r for the r5. Would be interesting in a comparison r5/r6 image quality.
People have done that and the R5 pretty much always puts out a superior image until you start getting into the higher ISO range where the lower mp count is better. Although the R5 is still very good in low light. But at low ISO the R5 gives a sharper, cleaner image.
That said, the R6 is more versatile and I would say a better value.
I have had the R about 2 years now and looking to upgrade to RF glass. We all chase 2.8s ut from what you say about stops and under exposing - it would follow that you could save by going wth F4 IS glass. . sorely tempting
I think your comparison proves, that the EOS R isn't "old iron"! Hope my R5 will come soon (ordered on 3. August, but here in germany it's difficult to get one) and stay with the R as backup.
The R5 has banding at highish ISOs.
From the exposure differences in your comparison, could you say that the r6 at 6400 is really at 5000 (or 4000 even), which is why it looks cleaner? Maybe so.
Rob Kramer, you're 100% right. I'm sorry to say this, but if someone doesn't see a difference in exposure (~ 0.7 EV) and still mindlessly compares files from both cameras, he should stop doing such reviews.
I am so on the fence. Question: since the R6 seems to expose darker you would have to push the exposure a bit more to get the same brightness level as the R that you are comparing to. Doesn’t that introduce more noise in the R6? Would have loved to see a side by side with the R6 exposure matched in post to the R and then compare noise at high ISO. The 6 seems quite a bit darker and that would def make it important to push it in post.
You can push the R6 two full stops with out much noise in the picture. Pushing it that incremental amount would not impact the image at all
Don't be on the fence. If you have the money for it the R6 is the superior camera and honestly I would say it's a much better value than the R5. It's not just about image quality (of which both the R and R6 are pretty much equal). The R6 is easier to use, has improved features, and will give you a much higher ratio of "keeper" images. Pretty much all images out of any camera need some work done in post, just depends on what exactly that work is. And personally I find that the workflow for R6 images is faster than the R. I just find I don't really need to adjust them as much, which was actually hard to get used to at first.
For video the R6 has a much smaller 4k crop (1.07x vs 1.7x of the R). And it's 1080 is VERY good where in most cases people won't really be able to tell the difference between that and 4k unless they're specifically looking for that difference.
If you already own the R and are happy with it, don't rush to upgrade because it's still a very good camera. Or if there is a particular lens you want, saving money by getting the R and putting that money saved towards a dream lens is better than buying any body since the lens will last long after the R, R6 and R5 become obsolete.
Who can adjust skin tone on R6 same R ? Pls, Thanks
the R6 would do better than the R at high iso because it's got less megapixels right?
Thanks for making the video Alex. I was finally able to rent an R6 and I did the same comparison with my R and to my amazement, the R6 was sharper than the R. I couldn't believe it. I thought the more pixels the camera had the sharper It would be but no. Weird. If anyone is concerned on the dip in megapixels, don't be, the R6 looks amazing and sharper than the R.
The only real practical reasons one would need more MP is either to do a lot of cropping, which is handy if shooting in places where you can't just move your position (events and such) OR they're printing out large images (poster size and larger) that need to be viewed very closely. If someone is showing photos online, or printing them for like albums or to be viewed at a fair distance (generally the larger the image, the farther people view it from. Such as billboards) then the 20mp of the R6 is MORE than enough. And it's worth noting that it's not just any ol' 20mp sensor but actually an excellent one.
I honestly think the eos r wins lol
me too
Why?
The R6 gives much cleaner images though.
Should do a eos r vs r6 video test but with the eos r with atomos ninja v 10 bit 4k so it’s fair
I love that you give samples to download.
The Adobe colour profile does all sorts of things to the raw file in the background and does it differently for different model cameras. Your not seeing the true exposure, there's a tone curve applied (which is hidden) and there's sharpening added as well. For the masses doing a quick edit this may not matter so much but when doing a critical image quality comparison between cameras you couldn't pick a worse way.
I provided files for you to check out, feel free to do your own testing
Alex: Looks like the EOSR is more than two stops brighter than the R6 at same ISO?
Is it possible that’s how Canon is able to provide better dynamic range (changing the level of gain?)
I never liked working with my CR3 files (vs arw) and has high expectations for the R5...
Now, is the new file better or a gimmick?
Great video and comparisons!!
Hey Alex thanks for the great comparison. But can tell me which one is best to buy. Can use others lenses also
I already have the R, no body upgrade for me, saving money for some RF Glass.
make sure you buy me a 1.2 while you're at it...
This is what I've been waiting for
Have the R and R5; still in the return window for the R5. Revisiting R6 vids to see if, perhaps, that option would be a better way to go for a hybrid application. After the 2nd viewing, I think the two cameras are a bit closer than what your comparison shows, but still can see that the R6 is still better. If the R6 was scaled up or the R5 scaled down so that the resolution was the same, the noise issue would have appeared less IMHO. And then, if exposure compensation was used on one or the other of the cameras so that the files were equivalent in brightness SOOC, I'm not clear if that would have helped or hurt the R vs R6. I.e., if I knew my camera had a tendency to expose bright, it makes sense to trim it back and vice versa. In any event, thanks again! Really enjoy your style of reviews.
Why do the “R” images look like they are zoomed in?
Thats the difference of 30mp vs 20
LETS TALK ABOUT WHITE BALANCE!!!!!!!!!
Thats something people are not really talking about but its a big deal
what were your findings when you uploaded the images into lightroom? with NO changes what so ever.
and sometimes even which after switching to kelvin, the eos r gives me weird skin tones or overall colors when the scene has a lot of greens and its a cloudy day.
moody
I always felt that the EOS R shoots really hot, meaning the exposure is always brighter than I'm aiming for or even want. whats your take on that?
Also, I feel the R6 sensor is very similar to 5DMK3 IMO
interested to hear thoughts on this.
R6 seems to have the same color characteristics of the Canon second line, this colors always have on 20D, 40D...6D...and I don't like it!! Hope my R6 still on backorder until I decide, because instead to buy a R5 I will stick with the R.
Of all the Canon I have used (40D,50D, 60D, 70D, 77D, 80D, 7D, 5D, 5DIII, 6D, 6D II and a lot of rebels xxxD), I love the colors of 40D, 5D and 5D III the most (I think it's due to LR's translation). How close is R6 to 5DIII or 5D?
Pixelpeeping isn’t what’s important. It’s the use of the camera. For landscape photos the R is much better due to its higher resolution and you overcome the dynamic range in post editing, for weddings I would say R6 has an advantage and the same goes for sport and nature where R6 is better because of the AF and speed. For portrait I prefer the higher resolution with the R.
It’s the R5 I want, that’s the holy grail!
3 stops of exposure at the price of 900-1000 $ what do you think is it worth choosing the R6?)
Not sure about R6 since I don't own one, but as for R5 there's known and confirmed issue with Lightroom that LR renders R5 CR3 files darker than it supposed to be. Adobe promises to fix this.
Thanks for this comparison! :)
The differences in image quality from canon cameras from 2012 (canon 6d, canon 1dx) till present are minimum. The difference is in the AF area. If you downsample the image from eos R , to mach thr resolution and expsoser from the R6, I'm shure there is not much difference left...
lol people need to stop dancing around the elephant in the room the eos r has sharper pictures however the r6 has more tools in its arsenal to get a quality photo.. quick af...etc
Hmm I am really happy I went with the R5 :) really loving working with the files
Maybe I am blind, eos R images look better. I sold R and looking for R6/R5, and this made me pissed off. good job mate.
Try to print 20 by 30 image of an eagle for example and you will see a substantial difference in details with those 10 extra megapixels on EOS R. I don’t want to deal with the incorrect white balance on the R6 when I come Back from Iceland with 6000 plus images to work on
I have the R6 MK2 and I have also kept my R. MPs do matter a lot and I have used both DSLRS in different situations. The R is actually a slower DSLR, and it has to be, it has 30 MPS unless it had todays latest AF2, newer sensor as the R6MK2 with the latest X processer and so on. The R5 is the best all-around DSLR in the Cannon range in my opinion. The R is a slow DSLR but 8FPS is not extremely slow- it is just about right to create a workable balance between 30 MPS and Mechanical shutter speed. My R it is much slower compared to my R6MK2 by a country mile though. But, I normally use my R for portraits in certain situations where my R6MK2 is not giving me enough of what I want and that can be down to the difference in MPs. This is why I use both DSLRS as a combination. I use my R6MK2 for normally almost everything and I mostly prefer the R6MK2 when I am on the go, or shooting moving subjects; I get 40 FPS in electronic shutter, and it is perhaps the closest thing to the R3 stacked sensor. The MK2 is fast! The Dynamic range on the R6MK2 as well as the R6 is better than the R but the R in my opinion produces better white-balance and adds more detail to images. It may not be as sharp or fast but there is always going to be a trade-off no matter what you buy and in the R's case, it will give you more MPS.. The images which my R gives me are amazing. It is a battle-hardened and proven DSLR for producing great full-frame images. It will produce a better image in some situations than even my R6MK2! And that is due to higher MPS which is why I decided to keep it for B Roll, back up and/or as an alternative if im not getting enough detail due to a lower MP count in some situations. My R solves that problem for me. I don't use it as much but whenever I need to try getting soemthing which looks different from its images, it never lets me down. 30 MPs are great to have! Why wouldn't anyone want the R? What else are you going to be buy in the Cannon range with a lot of MPS, R5? It costs a lot. I was not willing to give my R away, I decided to sell my R6 instead to upgrade to an MK2. My advice is this. get a fast DSLR (R6MK2 or R6 or R8) If you cannot afford the R3 - Fast cameras will normally provide you with a lesser MPS count. If you cannot afford the R5 then get the EOS R as a cover-up to solve MPS issues. You will not be disappointed!!! Focus on the 'combination' nather than just a single camera. Every shooter needs at least 2 DSLSRs, EOS R for me if the best backup camera on the planet. Or else, for the monies I have paid, I would have just brought an R5 or an R3, but an R6M2/R, R8/R or even R6/R is a great combination!
You said a couple of times that you don't like to use flash but prefer to keep detail in the sky and background. That is confusing. I expose for the sky and background and then use flash to expose for the subject.
Yup! Don’t like the look of flash and how much it slows me down. All preference here, nothing wrong or right
@@ABarrera Nice review! Keep up the good work.
I would better invest in some 1.2 RF lens than upgrade to R6. EOS R no need to under exposure, it’s classic Canon good in highlights recovery vs shadows recovery Sony types
With the R6 being a 1000 bucks more than the R. I dont think its a deal breaker for a 1 to 2 stops difference.
The R6 is more of a video camera the EOS R has that heavy 1.75 crop factor, whereas the EOS R is more of a photography camera.
I did my very first shoot today with my brand new (R6 + RF 70-200 F2.8) and HOLY SH*T! This is an absolute night & day difference over the (Canon 6D + EF 70-200 F4L IS) I had before. Ok that's also 7000$CAD vs ~3000$CAD but you can really tell a major diff. My ratio of good images is way higher, focus is 1000x better and faster, having up to 8 stops of stability is totally crazy, and now I can just let that ISO fully confident at "Auto" knowing that even when going pretty high it is still almost entirely free of noise, and I'd rather make sure I have no blur in the first place. Everything I would take in picture would give good results even when not even trying :o
QUESTION: There's a setting in the R6 called (Reduce Noise at high level of ISO). Is it better to use a noise reduction PRE-Lightroom, directly into the RAW file or the result is more efficient from Adobe Lightroom and ur better not use the one from the camera and only fix noise through Adobe instead? Usually fixing stuff Pre, is better than Post, so I'm asking since there's just so much more features and settings on the R6 than 6D.
Did you end up testing to see if it is better to reduce the noise pre, or during post-production?
@@sonicvboom Well, just about anything you could do BEFORE is obviously gonna be better than after. It's like the saying that goes by "Prevent rather than having to fix something". Ok in french it is much better lol, but you get the point. The less you "F-up" before, the less you have waste time in postprod, which is the last I hate the most as it's so time consuming and boring.
I set a max AUTO ISO limit to I think 6400, then a manual maximum if 128000 and I configure my custom settings so it jumps by steps of 1 stop for my ISO control such as "100-200-400-800...". Far quicker and easier to control the light than with 1/4 stops etc.
I find the camera often use too much than necessary cause it seems to think you have no lens with stabilizer so I'm starting to switch much more often from An to Full Manual which I've never done in 12 years from having DSLR cameras. Noise is already so much better with full frames but also far better on the R6 than my previous 6D.
In Lightroom when I import my raw I always select "Adobe Color + Lens Correction + Noise Reduction" and it automatically choose the right amount according to the ISO used and is so far never too much! Gone are the time where I had to manually do it per pictures!
@@PanzerIV88 I get what you're saying... But you still haven't directly answered my question though: Did you, or did not use the "Reduce Noise at High ISO" setting on the *R6* camera? If yes, do you find it helpful? Or were your images a bit too "soft" when you activated that setting?
@@sonicvboom I don't use that feature, if I remember well from reading the whole damn camera super thick manual, it said it only works for JPEG anyway. Dont use it.
@@PanzerIV88 Gotcha. Thank you for your swift reply!
The highlights were are a little crunch as well on my EOS R as well, compared to my 1DXII. I'm doing a lot of commercial product photography of lighting so it was more apparent to me than portraits of people. Thanks for the comparison video! I just picked up an R6. I'm still waiting for the R5 to be in stock. Which camera do you prefer?
I am loving both so far! But if I could only pick one I would go with more MPs and the R5.
@@ABarrera Good to hear! I'm getting both, but just curious. Thanks again!
Image fidelity comes from adequate sensor saturation and not from added algorithmic gain , i also need the extra 50% resolution for landscape purposes , i think the R6 is a great video camera though.
bought the r today should be here in 2 days cant wait im coming from the reble t5
Im looking to upgrade as well from rebel t5 to eos r or r6.
@@kertwo7921 i think the r is better then the r6
@@diamondly6250 thanks, I am buying r and then in the future move to r5 or newer version!
Thanks for this review. Can you try the video comparison? Thanks!
I subscribed because he goes directly to the topic that interests me
Thanks for the raw files by the way that’ll really help me determine if i will like the colors
Exactly what I looking for, thank you!
I will pick the R to the R6 or R5 until Canon resolve their crazy overheating issues. Maybe in R5 mk2. We will see.
Perhaps others have mentioned this in their comments, but the R6's focusing accuracy and its ability to focus on vehicles, animals and bird (with eye detection) leaves the worthy original R behind. I didn't recall this review focusing (pun intended) on the focusing speed and accuracy differences.
Simply put for basic portrait photography the R is a better value , I personally went with the r6 for the 5 axis stabilization which helps when lowering your shutter speed in dim situations and for the 1080 p 120fps . But if you’re not going to use those options then the 1000 does seem unreasonable
for a regular every day individual who's not into photography, the R would be the bang for the buckets. - they won't be able to tell the differences. for the stops, you can always turn up or down.
Actually I would say the R6 is still the better option because one, as Rip Dingers pointed out if someone is spending that kind of money and they don't care about photography they might as well just get an R6 (or R5). And even if they don't care at the time of purchase, they might develop an interest in photography in which case the R6 is better as it will provide better options as their interest develops without them having to buy a new camera.
I really couldn’t tell much of a difference between the two. Both are awesome but the IBIS is a big selling point if I didn’t have the R already.
Not to mention the auto focus and frame rate which is like the whole point of the r6. It’s a 1dx mkiii in a mirrorless body for half the price.
R6 has strong yellow color similar like Sony's color and it looks different from Canon like color as we can see more magenta in 1DX and EOS R etc.
If you download the files you will see otherwise. The R6 leans on magenta’s and the R on greens
@@ABarrera Thanks! mine was from a default results of Canon Ambassador in Japan with perfect white balance and indoor studio with perfect light, for depend on your starting point and outside environment the color shall shift.
4:47 Blowing out the highlights is never a good idea and so far every camera I've used struggled with highlight recovery a lot more than with shadow recovery. That even goes for the older Canon sensors. That said, at least according to Gordon at Cameralabs, the R6 actually does fair pretty well in highlight recovery. -> ua-cam.com/video/O6E6aGswzcE/v-deo.html
R6 is killer deal, but that 20 mp puts me little of. Is not that 30 mp is huge either, but still. R is probably more usable for landscape, macro, portraits. Probably everything except sport and wildlife. And of course R isn't great for video but it is still usable for youtube and social media. Just don't shoot Hollywood features with it. High ISO is something that i personally don't use so much except if i go for certain esthetics.
Why do we care and pixel peep so much about noise? 10 years ago, yes, the noise was terrible, but today the amazing ISO’s we get.. the tiny, minute amount of noise almost looks cool - has character. Gives a photo some vibe.. I prefer the R photographs to the R6.
I had a look at the Raw files. To me it seems as if the R6 has maybe a slight advantage in terms of details. Maybe this has to do with Canon's new AA filter or the IBIS reducing micro shake. Anyway it's great to see them being close in resolution! Thanks for the great content, always appreciated!!
The EOS R comes with 5D IV sensor (2016), the R6 comes with 1DX III (2020)
well i want a good camera that's full frame one that takes great pictures and video. i was told to buy this camera so i want to know a lot about this camera. i want to buy the tamron 24-70 and the tamron 35-150. you said it's only good for taking pictures and not for shooting video. well please tell me a good full frame camera please so i can check it out.
The R6 is still good for video. It is just not good for people wanting to do long videos. Like making short films or if you're a youtube vlogger. Obviously since most youtubers do a lot of longer videos they draw attention to the fact that the R6/R5 aren't as good for that. But for most everyone else they are still good cameras for video. And they'll [hopefully] get better with more firmware updates. The photos out of the R6 are excellent.
If you want a full frame that is better for video then the Sony cameras are pretty much equal too, or often way better, for video.
But to be honest, it's actually really hard to find a BAD camera now.
@@Chromedbustop i just want a very nice camera with better picture quality and good in low light and fast autofocus and can record video when i want to do that
@@jeremypinder4436 Then the R6 is an excellent choice.
@@Chromedbustop the guy said the canon eos rp is the best in low low
@@jeremypinder4436 I've never used the RP, but the R6 is great in low light AND it comes with many better features the RP doesn't have. Don't overthink it. If you have the money get the R6. Unless there is something VERY specific about the R or RP you want. And since you're unsure which camera you even want, the R6 is going to give you the most value.
Catching up on Alex vids by loading them up in multiple tabs:
"Heeeey what's up guys"
"Heeeey what's up guys"
"Heeeey what's up guys"
😂
Nice comparison, Adobe standard Profile is garbage making skintone greenish and bit underexposed on R6
Maybe you have highlight priority enable on R6 that's why you have less light
That only impacts JPG files
Photoshop not open cr3 ?
It can if you update camera raw. I believe as of this posting the latest version is 12.4, which is needed to open files from the R5/R6.
can you share that preset? lol it's fantastic!
What a joke! If you have iso 800 on R you need to have iso 1600 on R6 to get the same exposure.
I dont like the how the camera companies fool people and how the youtubers helping them.
Could you explain please?
Thanks for the video!
Would love to see an example for underexposed images you talked about :)
I totally agree on high ISO. I am a youth sports photographer. When shooting things like girls volleyball, I am constantly at ISOs from 6400 to 16000. The R REALLY falls apart, whereas the R6 has useable images even there!
R has more fine details. R6 has more noise reduction = less details.
Honestly, I can hardly tell the difference between the two. At this point we're just nitpicking the differences. If you're into video though, stick with the R6. If you need two card slots, stick with the R6. Otherwise, I think the R is a great photographer's camera at a great price if you can find one in good condition.
hmn,.. to be honest,. you should test the ISO test on Room temperature,. eos R6 was exposed darker,. probably because of exposure of the sun,. thats why it affects so much,.
i feel 6400 iso on R6 is just equavalent of 1600 iso on R,. in raw sample,. i feel bad for R6 users,. if this test is really accurate,.