The Most CONFUSING Thing About the Canon R6 

Good point!

But when I stick my nose on an 55" screen I can still see the pixels which means it's way too less of them! 🙃

True, but if you have to change the composition from vert to horiz (or vise-versa) then you will already be at less 4K resolution without any additional cropping.

@@Nearest_Neighbor 😅😅

I agree. This was one of the first things I learned about shooting in RAW. My instructor told us they would be a bit flat because of all the detail in them. So they almost always require a bit of adjusting.

No, I have an R6 with the problem she's describing. I don't think flat is really the right description. I have no problem making RAWs from any other manufacturer look beautiful with pleasant colors and good skin tones. All of that switched when I bought my R6. There's something about the file that leaves skin tone looking dead and very unpleasant no matter what you do with it. Selling it for something else. I do not have this problem at all with my Fuji and haven't had it with any of my previous Canons. Ultimately, I can work through it, but I spend myself having to work 5-10 minutes extra per image, and that adds up! Additionally, I don't think it's every R6. I downloaded some sample RAWs from someone else's R6 and they're perfect. It's like the skin tones in mine have no data to work with.

@@kevintoews5656 I feel the same about my R6! RAW images look great on camera display, but soooo flat once uploaded. You felt there was no way to fix the problem other than buying something else? Hoping that wasn’t going to be the answer- bc otherwise, I love everything else about the camera.

nope, unless you refer to linear profiles

I just did a shoot and loaded my photos into Darktable, and then did a fresh load into Lightroom. The photos in Darktable look horrible and need massive adjustments, the photos in Lightroom look great right out of camera. It’s a software setting rather than a camera setting.

What does that mean, "software setting"? Thank you for this. Do you know how to adjust software settings, because it's depressing how different they look in LR compared to camera monitor.

I love mine too!

Omg. This might be my issue. Thx so much for your comment.

Yes I've been so impressed by the low light!

The fact that they’ve moved the information from the top display into the EVF is much more preferable for me. This way I’m not dropping my camera to look at the settings, I can do it as I’m taking the picture. This may be personal preference though.

I did the same!

Interesting!

Not 100% sure! The CRAW is more of a compression format but maybe!

Yes I can agree!

Do you leave wifi/bluetooth on? I keep both of my R6s in airplane mode. I don't have a need to keep them on while I'm shooting so it's two less things to provide power to. Also look into the vertical grip which holds two batteries.

Yes you can get away with underexposing a bit. But not 2-3 stops!

@@KatelynJames Hi Katelyn, my point is: compared to my 80D, my R6 is underexposing almost half a stop (with exposure compensation set to flat). I remember to have seen this in other comparisons, too. No big deal, but worth mentioning in this context. PS: I uploaded a sample file...

i got here actually searchng "why is Canon r green tinted and desaturated"

Thanks for watching!

There isn't much of a price difference between the two right now, unless it's a used Mark IV. But if you're going to get a 5D Mark IV then you might as well get a Canon R. It's the same sensor, but it's mirrorless and has the eye detect autofocus. You'll be in the mirrorless world and save some money. After that is glass. Now, I've adapted EF glass to RF and it looks great, so if you already have some good EF glass then you can keep it. That said, if you can save up just a little bit more then you will LOVE the R6. I've been using it for a while now and the eye detect autofocus has really sped up my workflow. And remember that the R6 is basically the 1D X Mark III in a smaller package. That sensor is a BEAST! You can recover shadows in a way that the T5 simply can't. And I've shot at 4000 ISO and the image was super clean. But if you're really on a budget then see about getting a used 5D Mark III. I used one for years and it really is a remarkable camera, and it will be a huge step up from the T5 for very little money. Allen's Camera has one right now for $600, and their used gear is really good.

Thanks for watching!

Hi just bought and r6 after having the 1dxii , and I completely hate the colors, theres a huge differnce bitween th 1dx and that, do you have any tip on how to deal with it?

@@user-sk5qr8vx6e crazy you say that, I went back to an original 1DX from R6 and the difference is huge. I would suggest looking into camera profiles. Color fidelity is one of them

Are you using AWB or AWB-W (white priority)? White Priority should eliminate the yellow shift

There is something off with the R6 mark 2, the images are overly sharp, almost artificially sharp. People say it has to do with the adjusted low pass filter or some artificial sharpening system. This problem does not occur in the original R6 and R5, where the balance is just right.

@@mariavanschie7946 I agree. Im noticing my pics seem adjusted like an iphone.

So inspired by you even though I don’t do weddings. I moved to R6 mkii as I saw your videos on R6 😍

Would you mind telling me what your preset adds? I’m having the issue she’s talking about and would love to see if your fix works!

I’d love to know too!

Not in my experience. Adapted EF lenses are as good as they were on my 4s for resolution, rendition, aberration, distortion, but some (not all) don't focus quite as fast as the RF equivalent, and this is probably due to design updates in the RF, rather than compatibility issues with the adapter. After market EF bayonet brands on the adapter are clearly not as snappy in focusing, but they were sluggish and hunting on a 4s without an adapter so no change.

@@daemon1143 The one lens I found a little different rendering was back lit situations with the Sigma 35 1.4 - seems to have a bit more haze. The other EF lenses have looked great.

@@skyiswomb1 Can't speak to that one as it's not a lens I've used but, that's not a symptom of a micro change in focal plane, which apart from electronic compatibility is the only thing that can be notably different.comparability.

Thanks for watching!

True!

I would assume you shot RAW. On the back of your camera, the camera has already added a "picture style". In Lightroom, you're seeing the raw photo, and picture styles don't affect those. Picture styles are only for JPEG shots, if I'm not mistaken. It's basically the camera "editing" the photo for you if you want to export / shoot in JPEG. But if you shot in RAW, the files you copy from the card (.dng, .cr2 or .cr3) will not carry the picture styles at all. If you didn't use RAW, kindly disregard the above. I would also suggest to check the images in Adobe Bridge as well, just to check if it's a Lightroom problem. Like Katelyn mentioned, she doesn't know why some people are getting those grey, flat images. It's possible they're 1.) using a different software, which prolly render the RAW images differently or 2.) they didn't use RAW and used a neutral profile instead or 3.) Lightroom issues, preview settings, etc.

Thank you so much for your reply. It’s very much appreciated. I’m gonna go try to open them in bridge and see. That’s a great idea.

@@nicoarcenas I do shoot raw I just compared them in bridge like you said and they look identical. I adjust in Lightroom and pulled them into camera Raw and they all look the same. Can you suggest any settings in my R6 I could change or try?

Maybe haha. Like dang my images are so noisy because I'm in a dark room without flash but ISO 40,000 and 1/800 shutter 😂 kind of joking but kind of possible

I wonder if they are underexposing in areas where they should just raise ISO. Getting it right in camera is the best for dealing with noise

This!!! I’ve had my r6 for like 6 months. Im struggling with consistency and I’m guessing it has a lot to do with light because golden hour photos are sooo perfect but 30 minutes before golden hour are just ‘meh’

@@slapplerbattles90009 yes light is everything in photography! :)

Ty uses the Canon C70!

5DMKIII is only 2 extra megapixels. You'd be better off going with a cropped body if you need extra reach or something like an R5 with more megapixels!

@@KatelynJames R6 has 20MP and the 5D Mark III has 30MP I'm pretty sure? R5 is out of the budget haha R6 was top of the budget Edit: omg you're right, where on earth did I read 30? OK well I guess I'll get the R then

@@rubyredphoto the 5dm4 has 30 :D - But you should perhaps look at a R7 - if you shoot a lot of that type of things, and dont want to invest or cannot invest in a 400mm :) - also the cheap 600 and 800mm seems to have great reviews. Good luck :)

@@Grasseatereu thanks I might have to look at the R7. I don't really wanna spend more than £800 but will go to £1,000 at a push and I need a second camera to replace my little 250D. Put the 70-200 on the higher MP camera so I can crop in to the action across the field then the 24-70 on the R6 for those sweet goal shots Edit: never mind the R7 is £400 over my max haha! I wasn't planning on shooting sports, I do events and weddings but my local team asked really nicely lol

@@rubyredphoto if its for pics, the r10 is perfect! Great auto focus and apsc at 15fps! and not too expensive

I converted from the D750 to the R6 last year. Recently bought and R3. I struggled at first with raw files until I changed from Lightroom to Capture One. The lightroom files looked very flat with strange color no matter what profile I used to include the Color Fidelity profiles. I also change from AWB to AWB-W. The R6 files are beautiful with the right software

@@Mrbr00ks74 Yeah, AWB-W is a game changer!

The way to avoid areas blown out is to use the histogram and don't let anything crowd the right side. You want all the light you can get without overexposure causing data loss. Under exposure yields a flat image on the R6 in my experience.

@@daemon1143 so do you expose it right on target or a little overexposed or what? I don’t know much about using the histogram while shooting

@@rachelforshee No problem, but like everything in photography, takes a little practice and a bit of judgement. So you want your luminance histogram (not the red, blue green ones) to be visible in your viewfinder, preferable the small version not the huge one which gets in the way of composition I find. You are familiar with the graph tailing of to right and left with one or several humps around the middle. The right is brightest, the left is darkest. If the graph has a peak, even a little one, on the right edge, this is all data that is blown out, and the exposure should be pulled back so very little or none touches it. Similarly, if it crowds the left it will be very dark and if a peak touches it, this data will be lost to black. In theory a perfect exposure of will have the majority of data in the center hump, or if there are several things of distinctly different brightness, humps, and tail away to both sides with nothing touching, or barely kissing, the right and left edges. In practice, this is usually bloody boring and equates to neutral grey in luminance. So, to get the best colour pop, you can often benefit from lifting the exposure whilst keeping an eye on the histogram until the data just comes up to the right side, without forming a peak on the right edge. In practical terms though, as long as your have no peaks on either edge, all data in the frame has detail and you can recover it all and balance it to taste in post. Where this breaks down is if your histogram is skewed to the left because you're under exposing (in the theory that under exposure is easier to sort than blow outs in a digital image), completely aside from the fact that your image out of the camera will look flat and won't inspire you to put much effort into it, if you have to lift a lot of data out of the left side to balance the image, the amplification involved will dramatically increase noise in the resultant image, which is a whole different nuisance to repair. Noise is caused through the sensor not receiving enough photons on top of the random background, to wash out that random background (thus the noise is visible), and post process brightening amplifies this noise. Thus ideally, on your mirrorless, you want the brightest image you can get without blow out causing data loss and, this is where the right side of your histogram is your best bud. Hope that helps. Oh, and remember, if your scene has such a high dynamic range that you can't achieve this (and it happens), you can still beat the limited dynamic range of your sensor by exposure bracketing with third to max half stop gaps, so you have an exposure that properly captures the shadows and another that gets the brights, then exposure blend in post. However, this obviously doesn't work for any scene where things move and frank;y, its a bit of a PITA.

One thing to check is: which colour space is the RAW converter tool converting to (can be usually set within the tool, both for exports and the display) - and is your screen actually capable of displaying this colour space in full? Adobe RGB displayed on sRGB screens always looks a little pale.

DPP is so slow....

You're definitely not alone! Hopefully we can get to the bottom of it!

Just in 2022, we did 102 elopements, 30 large weddings, 40 family sessions. I know. Thats a whole lot, but we do it. We love the R6's..Still have 2 5DMIII's and it is so hard to go back to those when needed..The Super flat thing is real, at times, for us. The other support group I would like to start is the "RF 28-70 is too heavy and barrel size makes my arm hurt, but I can't stop using it" type group. Cheers y'all

Maybe I'm confused by this "too flat" issue but wouldn't editing just solve that? Like yeah raw images are flat, so is LOG in video but you just color grade it to look normal

​@Bill Peary the Spider Pro Hand Strap v2 changed my life. It's eases the weight of the 28-70 dramatically

Do you expose manually? I usually shoot in AV, exposure adjustment set to zero, and the raw files of my R6 tend to be a bit on the dark side compared to the ones produced by my 80D. Can easily be fixed in post, however...

@@tom_k_d Yep manually, shadows just aren't my favorite on it. I also learned I have to use a much higher shutter than I use to ... what KJ said -- don't be afraid of higher ISO on these machines!

@@elisefilliccia Thanks, I will try that! Technically there shouldn't be much difference between boosting RAWs in post and increasing ISO, though, unless a camera is dual native ISO - which the R6 isn't.

We'll see!