They should secure camera bodies like how cars are starting to do Driver Profiles. You use you fingerprint to bind settings to it. Except, on a camera, you add the fingerprint sensor on top of the shutter button so the body knows that each image is taken by YOU and when you turn the camera on you have to verify your print on the shutter and voila your presets are ready for YOU.
It's not such a tragedy, the R52 it is still far better than the 5Ds R. Also, pushing the shadows too high up, the magenta fog is no longer there like on the R5. That said, I would love to see a Canon high-res body aimed at the landscape/architecture/studio photographer. A R5s in other words.
@@SACHICABOYACA That is the way I see it right now as well - regarding the sensor performance (signal-to-noise) only, the GFX is unbeatable by anything full-frame. Might end up going that route, adapting my EF glass. On the other hand, Canon, Nikon and the likes have advantages in lens selection, usability, ergonomics, weather sealing, and focusing systems (and video which I don't care much about). Having a ton of EF glass makes that changing the system is not a move I am particularly looking forward to... I would much more love to see a Canon camera reach the full-frame equivalent of the GFX performance - I don't really need the 4:3 ratio nor the extra real estate on the sensor requiring bigger and bulkier lenses; but the 16-bit readout and SNR performance would be very nice for landscapes, architecture, macro etc.
@@davepastern are we just making things up now. So you are saying this thing can shoots every single image using AI enhancements but didnt even use AI denoise and it doesnt slow the camera down? THe AI noise setting....
Stacked sensors have always been a compromise, the Z7 also is better in that regard than the flagship Z9. But really, if you're mainly doing landscapes, you probably don't need the new R5 II or a Z9, and if you need those cameras for wildlife, sports or whatever, you can still get around it by bracketing. In my opinion, and for my use case (Wildlife), the trade-off is more than worth it. For landscapes, you can pick up a full frame, 45 MP Z7 used for like 1200€ nowadays, probably similar in USD, which is an amazing deal.
Used prices are reflecting the used market's swarm intelligence, they tell you, that a used Z7 is actually not worth more than 1200. That is not an "amazing deal", but just what it is deemed only still worth, nowadays. It is a bit of a shame, that Nikon neglects this market segment with continuing to offer an aging camera model. Another reason for low used market prices is usually a shrinking market share. Old guys already have the cameras they want or need, whereas there are too few new guys deciding to joining the Z system. They are therefore missing from the demand side of the used market, and that is reflected in low used prices, as well. Same effect as with Pentax or Olympus used markets.
@@tubularificationed I don't get what you're trying to say. Yeah, of course there's a reason why the Z7 is so cheap and unpopular for most people, the autofocus is absolutely terrible. And for that reason it's an amazing deal, if your work doesn't need it, like for landscape, astro, product or macro photography.
Some scenes have varying light sources - photographers can't control every lighting situation Plus, we all love backlit scenes We aren't Noobs for wanting dynamic range
Disagree. I shoot a lot of performances/gigs/events, and a lot of night-time street photography, where I have no control over the lighting, and I need a 1/320 or faster shutter speed to capture moving subjects, so I'm forced to use a high ISO. There are lots of situations where I'd love to have a bit more detail in the shadows, and if the R5II produces WORSE detail in the shadows in those conditions than my R5, then it'd be a downgrade not an upgrade for me personally.
Honestly, I don't get it. It's kind of pointless. Data is not part of camera, but all on SD card and in order to protect it camera must do its own encrypting which potentially lead to much higher chance of losing data all together and decreasing lifespan of said card... I guess it should be a feature of SD cards.
Depends on your definition of “security” features. Insta360 just introduced Apple’s “Find My” capability in their latest Go cam. I’d be up for that. But codes, fingerprint unlocks - not a deterrent IMO.
I bought the Canon R6ii just after launch, and don't plan on upgrading to the mk iii. I do mainly landscape and wildlife photography, so the increased video specs don't much matter to me - and it seems like that could probably be pushed through on a firmware update anyway. Keep up the great updates! :)
Yeah! Same! The camera is the most underrated of the past 2 years.... It's got full frame, oversample 4k60 something the A7IV, S5II and even the R5 and R5 II do not have (the R5's are much softer as they are line skipped). Plus it's got essentially the R3 autofocus and faster rolling shutter than all those cameras mentioned, and 40 fps for photos. And it also has better dynamic range and better AF than the new z6 III. Canon really got it right with this camera. And also upscaled the R6 II files actually are sharper than the native 45 MP R5 files.
I'm also sticking with my R6 II. This camera is perfect for the wedding and event work I do. It's a low light monster and delivers the best Canon colours I've seen. Not sure how much better the AF can get when it's already so good. As an owner of the OG R6, 5DS R, and the R7, the R6 II is my favourite to use by far.
It’s hard to tell on RU-vid, but it looks like the r5II images are sharper than the r5’s. While the r5 images have less noise, it almost looks like some noise reduction was applied?
@@livejames9374 thank you, I didn’t even notice that. I assumed they used the same conditions. To make a fair comparison, the same lens should’ve been used.
@@khalemaru6387 if the R6iii does turn out to be a hybrid of parts from the R3 and the R5 it could turn out to be highly desirable provided, of course, that the price was kept at a reasonable level. Hopefully recycling existing technology would help to keep the price down.
I had a R6 MK2 briefely and after shooting with a R5C for so long I just cant go back to the smaller resolution and the button placement and menues just felt too "off" I have the R5 MK2 on order, but depending on what the technical reviews reviel. I might actually just get another R5C or even an R5. The other thing I miss when working with the R6 and R8 is Compact Flash cards. So much easier to work with when ejecting, reading, so much faster, and feels more robust and actually cheaper given the capacity and speed compared to the top speed SD cards.
"If the 24MP sensor on the Canon R6 mkIII is bsi and or stacked, improving dynamic range an low light performance, I would consider upgrading from the original R6. Better AF is always a welcome addition too." I too really need the new Backside Illumination technology in the new Canon R6 Mark III because I mainly shoot female backsides.
I wish that they would up the sensor on the M6mk3 to 30 mp like the R. I recently bought a second hand R to use as a backup and find the pics better than the R6 mk2 I have. R is a bit clunky to use but I think that I like it better Tony.
For me the R6III is a no go. If I were to buy a full frame camera, I want it to have at least 45MP. However, the possibility of a new R6-series camera this year would mean they are updating every two years. And if that's the case, maybe Canon will surprise us by fixing the APS-C R7. Despite the name, the R7 falls well short of the "pro" quality APS-C Canon was so successful with in the 7D and 7DII DSLRs. They tried to carry on with the 90D, telling us that combined the best of the 80D and 7DII... but that fell short. The R7 is more of a mirrorlesst 90D than 7DII. As much success as they had with the 7D-series, it is baffling why Canon didn't go more upscale with the R7. Hopefully they will correct that in its successor. The R7II should have... - Faster readout speed to reduce rolling shutter effect. - Better AF (they proved it's possible, with the full frame cameras). - Larger buffer. - Dual card slots with at least one CFExpress (preferably both). - Compatibility with a battery grip. - More "normal" Canon ergonomics... especially put the main dial back where it belongs. Yes, these things would mean the R7II costs more than the R7. But so did the 7DII... ten years ago! Its intro price was $400 more (US) than the R7's. What are you afraid of, Canon? That a truly pro-grade APS-C camera will steal sales from your full frame line up? If you don't build it, someone else will. (Have you noticed Fuji's increased market share?) Or are you waiting for Sony or Nikon (as you did the last time... with the D200, D300 & D500)?
if they did, I would finally upgrade from my D500. Until then, no thanks. [I would also accept an APSC Nikon flagship, but I kind of want to try Canon's AF, and I want raw precapture not jpg]
I’m okay with it. It’s probably going to take an R5CII or R1 variant or A7S4 or Nikon Z8 RED to compel me to get a different camera, I got the R6II because it did full frame 4k60 but now that manufacturers are all starting to provide this I’m looking into noise, dynamic range, Image Quality, log profiles, codecs, time code, wave forms, etc
Please, please, PLEASE complete a full review on r5 ii dynamic range and still image QUALITY. PLEASE!! Sick of hearing about speed etc.... WE ALL WANT to know about the potential of better image quality or NOT.
Built-in GPS is a hard requirement for me, so I still have nothing to replace my Canon 6D II. I get GPS tagging on photos from a literal telephone that fits in my pocket-it's an absolute embarrassment that cameras three or four times the price can't do the same.
You can just have your phone in your bag and your images will get the GPS location (at least with Fuji and Canon). That's your deal breaker issue resolved, lol.
Agreed. I still have my 6d 2 for the times I need GPS. The phone app has significant pitfalls that make it unworkable for me. If the 6d 2 had two card slots, it might still be my primary camera.
Have tried to use Canon Connect with my R6 but still have issue of it losing connection if not used for a long interval. Was using a Solmeta external GPS unit until it suffered damage when it was bumped on camera. Luckily the camera hotshoe was robust and not damaged but the GPS foot was cracked.
So true. I had a Nikon Coolpix P510 (a bridge camera) which did have GPS built in. Now I have a D780 and I need to connect it to my iPhone to get GPS (which draws the battery level faster). I don’t understand how a consumer camera in 2012 had GPS and in 2024 almost no pro body has it
I want Canon R6C, 24mp is plenty suffient for cinema, the new IBIS tech from R5mkII that would be really cool and useful, built in fan and no extra grip and crap floating around. It’s strange why Canon doesn’t do a camera like that?🧐
It’s a shame these new faster cameras don’t compensate for the DR/noise hit by making up for it in software with in-camera RAW exposure bracketing and stacking. JPEG de-noise is useless.
Stacked sensors have always been a compromise, however only NOW have more folks wanted to TALK about it. Before, most would have just stated how GREAT post processing software is and how it really wasn't that big of deal. Now that it's Canon more then a FEW folks will want to make yTuber videos about it. One of the suppose most beloved Sites also now wants to talk about that compromise where as before the pretended as if that was never the CASE. Also, exactly what CERTIFIED equipment are any of these sites using to verify their supposed findings.
I wonder how quick this camera will end up on Canon's "apology page". Not falling for the BS long lens patents. 200-800 still not available and no ETA on shipping 1 year after release.
Seems to be a repeating trend with new Z6iii sensor, too. In general, stacked sensors seem to trade off on dynamic range for now. Maybe they will shift back increasing DR in the next generation of stacked sensors?
It's not that simple... Dynamic Range will be worse, but rolling shutter and possibly AF will be better. We should be testing it in the next couple of weeks.
I swear, “the internet” better whine about the R5II’s negligible DR hit as much as it did with the Z6III. Tradeoffs, choose your priorities. Also what’s the affected ISO range in the R5II? Below 800 only, like the Z6III?
Good on Pentax to finally do the work. I've love to have the option to have my camera prompt me for a password at some regular interval (maybe selectable in a menu). Example, enter the password once at the beginning of the day and if someone steels it, it becomes a brick by the next morning. Some might choose a longer or shorter interval.
Good video but I do have to disagree on one point: I disagree with GPS. The cost of the of the component could be better used for other features. I do not use location, even on my phone. So if you want location, use blue tooth from your phone. To have the expense of GPS specifically on the camera is an instant deal killer for me just as with a camera that does not have a fully articulating screen. As for security, I agree. This can be done without additional cost to all cameras with a software upgrade. And I believe it is important to allow the owner to choose security or not. Maybe after 20 attempts to add the password, you would have to call the company for a one time unlock code. Again owner option to use or not use. But leave GPS off of cameras. Grab it from your phone if you want it.
Racing ahead on sensor tech to add features. Initial versions have a few negatives as always, expect them to improve over the generations. Sony a9 iii recently released with global shutter had a lot of Sony users disappointed their older cameras took as good or better pictures in most cases. The global shutter though is nonetheless ground breaking and expect to see better image quality in the next gen of their global shutters
Wow. I didn't care even slightly about all the previous complaints regarding the R5 II or especially the R1. But THIS matters. Dynamic range is very important to me. If this turns out to be accurate and not some kind of mistake, I'll be sticking with the R5.
Pretty old at this point it’s both good and bad that that body is still going to be relevant in 2025 good for our wallets but bad for innovation in the field (can a guy get an EVF that’s better than 720p lmfao)
@@Citizenflaba Yeah. It's funny that people are always talking about fps and such. Honestly the R5 is fine for most everything at this point. The kind of improvements I want now are a better EVF, better cloud services for transferring photos, and I guess improvements to autofocus are always welcome. Like a lot of stills-focused shooters, rolling shutter just isn't an issue for me, so losing the DR is a pretty big step backwards. Not a good trade off.
One thing I notice is that the R5 II files look more detailed so there is probably less on sensor noise reduction. With that said the IQ is amazing with all cameras these days. My buddy owns all the Canon DSLRs ever made and did comparisons of the images for real world and the difference from the first camera all the way up the even the R3 he owns really isn't that massive.
Wonder what would happen if they use DSLR technology to pack two sensors in cameras one for low light/dynamic range and one for action sports/fast read out.
adaptive variable ISO sensor. squeeze more dynamic range out of it by setting ISO to the brights and have it real time read the sensor data and be able to select iso like a focus point to prevent. blown highlights or blacks. if you have it on a tripod, I’m sure that tech is not out of reach like a software driven graduated, neutral density filter
In addition to security features, it would be nice if there was a decoy mode so if you didn't input the password, the camera would operate and display only non protected photos. I've been in situations in places like Africa where security level is arbitrary and if the camera was completely password protected they might just confiscate the memory card anyways. With a decoy mode you could at least appease noisy checkpoints.
I'm really considering the 100-300 f2.8 for wildlife, with a 2x and its 200-600 5.6. I used it in real world and it is so good. Pair this with a future 300-600 and its changing the wildlife game!
Using the eyeball test with DPRs unscientific measuring technique one would say that the R5 mark ii has more detail. That's why I always use my own testing. DXO marks is pretty good. They will display the numbers for what they are. The R5 DR being 14.6. I don't know what DPR is claiming to be the number that they concluded.
If the 24MP sensor on the Canon R6 mkIII is bsi and or stacked, improving dynamic range an low light performance, I would consider upgrading from the original R6. Better AF is always a welcome addition too.
The original R5 will have a very nice price by Black Friday Canon Refurb. The question is, should one buy one of those or the also heavily-discounted R6 II.
Hi Tony, I respect your reviews and news. I own an R6 MKII and am delighted with it. I am a rank amateur of 60+ years and shoot primarily landscapes (rocks hold still). The present image stabilization and autofocus already exceed my needs. No need to upgrade here. Keep up the good work! Richard
Kodak used to have a digital SLR that was sold mostly to law enforcement because it had some type of security on the memory card so that you could not change or download the photos without a password. And if you changed the image it recorded what changes you made. It was mostly used for taking photos of crime scenes.
I believe it's worth mention that security needed not against people you sell stuff, but against government and lawmakers. Respect for you started mention optionality of security the stuff
So basically full frame cameras like the R5 II and the Z6 III sacrifice dynamic range for faster readout to arrive where Micro Four Thirds has been all these years... 😁 (Edit: The Photons to Photos numbers of the R5 ii don't look too bad though...)
R6 III should have 30M pixels with better DR already. If the rumored specs are correct this is at most a ‘face lifted’ version, not worth the upgrade at all.
I honestly stopped caring two years ago. My go-to camera is currently a Canon 5D mk1. If I buy a new camera (I have a few) it will be a Canon R6mk2 then I think I'm done for the next decade. I'm only looking at the r6mk2 for it's eye-detect AF. 99% or what I need is now available for about $300, like a 5Dmk2, or $600 in a mk3.
I wonder if the R1 also made compromises. I wish there was flagship camera that was optimized for image quality. I do not need more than three images per second. I am skeptical about an improved IBIS, because the limiting factor already is the image circle of the lens. Only lenses with a very large image circle can do the eight stops.
I bought a Canon R6 M2 few months ago.. Quite an impressive update from previously owned 5Dm3.. but i was sad to see that it does internal slo-mo only in HD.. Fortunately I did not sell my GH6.. I was about to. If it will be in the mark 3, I might consider the B-roll cam.. if not, GH7 to the rescue
Photographers don't need "security" beyond having some kind of hash verification of the photos being authentic and not AI or to confirm copyright. The internal GPS shouldn't definitely be integral in all new cameras though for sure.
I keep seeing reviewers complaining that most bodies don't have built in GPS, whereas many compacts do. The reason is simply power. GPS is startlingly power hungry and in higher end bodies, power consumption is already a problem. In compacts, that typically don't have the onboard equivalent of a 90s super computer running, there is more power to spare and still deliver an acceptable runtime and shot count.
No surprise Canon had more cameras at the Olympics, being they use the Olympics to showcase their newer cameras. Hands down though, the Sony A9 III is the superb sports camera.
The Canon R5 has a lot of baked-in noise reduction in their "Raw" files (I mean can you even call it Raw at this point?), anyway maybe the R5ii doesn't have as much baked-in NR or any at all.
@@bryllupmiami3499we’ll have to wait for in depth reviews, canon certainly isn’t gonna say if there is baked in NR lmao but most manufacturers do have some baked in I believe
@bryllupmiami3499, manufacturers never say anything about how they create RAW files. I do not recall they ever said these files contain totally unprocessed data. I don't think this is even possible.
In 2024 if you had $1000 to spend and you wanted the best camera for landscape and portrait photography, what would you choose? I could care less about video. I'm looking at the Canon RP, but I wonder if there is something better?
I am not worried about image quality. This is what The Digital Picture says, after 180 test pictures, about DR and noise for the R5m2 « The R5 Mark II delivers outstanding image quality, including ultra-high resolution with modest noise levels with excellent dynamic range. » « the R5 Mark II shows a tiny disadvantage [in terms of dynamics range], primarily in the cyan block, to the R5, an excellent performer. You will not likely notice this difference in normal use. » “The low noise performance from this imaging sensor is excellent” “R5 II image noise levels match those of the R5- both are excellent performers.” “The R5 II images have less noise than those from the EOS R6 II.” « Does the electronic shutter impact the Canon EOS R5 Mark II's image quality? The noise and overexposed test results are indistinguishable. The strongly underexposed comparisons at high ISO settings slightly favor the 1st curtain shutter results showing slightly less noise. »
As an R6MKii owner, the new r6mkiii sounds like it isn't anything to write home about as far as upgrades or features go. Probably not gonna be worth the investment price point and wise either. Im already considering switching back to Sony as They dont have nearly enough lens options on the market for the RF mount.
Canon is doing alright I guess R6 III is a good camera for enthusiasts but I'm not upgrading from my R6 II. Exciting 400-600 and 300-600 lenses, hope they aren't too expensive, big or heavy
To think that Sony basically took over AP, the fact that Canon shooters comprised nearly 50% of the shooters at the Olympics is telling. Was the overall market share data you cited for mirrorless or did it include dslrs too. If it included both than Canon's numbers are not that impressive, but if it is mirrorless, given Sony's headstart, then Canon's position is impressive.
Sure makes one wonder to think where Canon would be if they had decided to focus on mirrorless sooner and put all their efforts into the tech. Even more interesting if they had done that an not wasted precious R&D on power shoot cameras and the m series no one wanted
To be honest I kinda expected Sony to be higher on the olympics. I'm a canon shooter but I feel like the Alpha 1 or Alpha 9 were a better choice than the R3 or R1. I love my R5 and 1DX II but canon needs to pick up the slack if they don't want to be behind in sales and in the olympics soon I didn't even upgrade my lenses from EF to RF because I'm still pondering if I'll be staying with canon for my next camera
That’s R6 mk III sounds like a purfect camera for me, Tony. Skip the stuff I don’t need; and improve the specs I’d like…plus it would bring down the price of the R6 mk II ! …which I’d really hope for ! Thanks 😮😅
Don’t think I will upgrade my R6 II. Sounds like it won’t happen for a long time. I am upgrading my R5 to the II. Don’t need the waterproof Pentax. I do, however, think I want to get the Leica D Lux 8. There are times when my 22-pound camera bag is inconvenient, like when I’m trying to go up the heavily inclined slick granite ridge behind the Tunnel View parking lot at Yosemite.
More noise, but waaaaay sharper and more clean contrast. Shoot properly and throw PS noise AI on if needed. I’ll take the new tech and faster readout for the sports I shoot all day.
There is no way the R5MKII has lower DR than the R5. We will soon find out, but if it is true, Canon could never write 16+ steps DR for the R5MKII. If it is true, please find it out so that persons like me can quit our preordereds... At least I hope this is not true...
Actually it could be very true. Stacked sensors are layered and hence will reduce light intensity without making additional improvements to the sensor will lead to lower dynamic range. Stacked sensors have thus far been built for speed and distortion reduction of electronic shutters not as yet for DR. Perhaps Canon is using software to “improve” dynamic range in camera so they can claim an improvement in DR. To add DR AND a stacked sensors would be a good step forward. Time will tell soon.
Oh! That Ricoh G900SE II has a very familiar look, nevertheless it took me a couple of minutes to figure it out. Remember that OM System TG-7...? I'd swear it's almost the same
My prediction, the hype and anticipation will build for the R6III for a year, it will be released to great fanfare, then you and everybody else will point out that it’s disapointing because it has the same dynamic range limitation as the Z6III.
The R5 mkII dynamic range seemed fine on photons to pixels charts. If you are a landscape or portrait photographer you are not shooting with high iso settings so noise won’t be a problem. If you shoot wildlife and sports just remove the noise in post. No hang wringing required.
"They wouldn't be able to protect the pictures if you could just pop the memory card out" Yes they could if they encrypted the drive, i.e. what Microsoft and Apple have been doing for well over a decade
