[miro]

DP review just did R6 reveiw

It is too late to read in depth, but one thinks buzz me
copy paste from dpreview page
"Some noise reduction is always applied to low ISO Raws"

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r6-review/6
Did I understand this sentence corectly
BTW: Canon fanboys told me that canon never do this

[Klaus]

Well, is it important?

I quite like the R6. What I don't quite understand is the price difference to the EOS R.
Sure, it relates to the age of the EOS R but locally it's AUD 2700 (I paid 2200) vs AUD 4400.
That's AUD 1700 for ... what exactly? Sure there's the IBIS, somewhat better video specs and the usual refinements but does that explain THIS difference?
Of course, the early bird pays the most.

[faint]

Personally, I'm very happy with the competitive analysis at the end of the review, in the conclusion section. The view is just too one-sided, in favor of the R6. This is most obvious when R6 is compared to the Z6, stating that R6 has the slight edge, but omitting to mention in which aspects, or that R6 is nearly double the price of Z6. More importantly, they mention that R6 is more capable at recording internal video, but the Z6 movie kit, sold with Atomos Ninja V, is still cheaper, and the comparison no longer holds.

I think DPreview has become an entertainment site with a shortcut to buy the listed gear from Amazon, but I'm not happy with the quality of the content they serve.

[Brightcolours]

Personally, I'm very happy with the competitive analysis at the end of the review, in the conclusion section. The view is just too one-sided, in favor of the R6. This is most obvious when R6 is compared to the Z6, stating that R6 has the slight edge, but omitting to mention in which aspects, or that R6 is nearly double the price of Z6. More importantly, they mention that R6 is more capable at recording internal video, but the Z6 movie kit, sold with Atomos Ninja V, is still cheaper, and the comparison no longer holds.

I think DPreview has become an entertainment site with a shortcut to buy the listed gear from Amazon, but I'm not happy with the quality of the content they serve.

Lol, puzzling post you make there.

"Against the Nikon Z6 we think the Canon has the slight edge. We'd argue for the Canon's control layout and flexibility over the Nikon (though it's within the realms of personal preference), but feel the R6 brings a little more to the table in most respects. Rolling shutter and the looming overheat limits mean it's not a clear-cut victory for the Canon in terms of video, but the results are superb (and the Nikon can't internally record 10-bit or 60p footage). The Canon shoots faster, has excellent stabilization and features such as HDRTV-ready HEIF capture. The R6's benefits add up to enough to justify the price difference but probably aren't great enough to overrule consideration of whether the lenses you want are available."

Omitting to mention in which aspects, you write.

• Control layout and flexibility
  
• superb video results
  
• 10-bit and 6-p footage
  
• shoots faster
  
• has excellent stabilization
  
• HEIF
  

So they actually mention quite a few things, even though the list of what the R6 does more/better is much longer.

Then you say double the price.
B&H Z6 price: ~1800. B&H R6 price: ~2500.

By the way, DPReview also wrote a review of the Z6. In case you really interested.

Just a few points:
Z6 does 9fps at 14 bit raw, 12 fps at 12 bit raw. R6 does 12 fps at 14 bit raw, 20 fps at 12 bit raw.
Z6 : 5.5fps for live view. R6: 8fps with live view feed.
Z6 RAW buffer capacity: 43. R6 buffer capacity: 240
Z6 AF low light sensitivity: -3.5 EV. R6 AF low light sensitivity: -6.5 EV
Z6: tilting LCD. R6: Swivel LCD
R6: dual memory card slots
R6: higher res. EVF
Z6: XQD. R6: SDXC.
R6: the great DPAF for video and stills. Z6: does not.

Whether you find the $700 price difference worth all that or not, is upto you of couse.

[miro]

Well, is it important?

I quite like the R6. What I don't quite understand is the price difference to the EOS R.
Sure, it relates to the age of the EOS R but locally it's AUD 2700 (I paid 2200) vs AUD 4400.
That's AUD 1700 for ... what exactly? Sure there's the IBIS, somewhat better video specs and the usual refinements but does that explain THIS difference?
Of course, the early bird pays the most.

Actually, I’m going to buy R6 when the price settle, but R6 is the cheapest component. The new workflow requires at least 3000..5000$ PC
I’ve tested R6 footage on my aging desktop PC -  I7- 6700K 32GB RAM,NVIDIA 980, It runs mostly OK. My notebooks have problems with continues loads, they starts thermal throttling after 30sec ...2min.
I’ve started building the new one – AMD Threadripper 3970x , 128GB RAM. One extra 4Kmonitor Still old video card. Postponed to see the new NVIDIA’s 3000 series after few days.

[Brightcolours]

Well, is it important?

I quite like the R6. What I don't quite understand is the price difference to the EOS R.
Sure, it relates to the age of the EOS R but locally it's AUD 2700 (I paid 2200) vs AUD 4400.
That's AUD 1700 for ... what exactly? Sure there's the IBIS, somewhat better video specs and the usual refinements but does that explain THIS difference?
Of course, the early bird pays the most.

The high performance explains the price difference (12 fps mech shutter, 20fps e shutter, huge buffer, very high data processing performance, it basically offers 1D X III/Sony A9 II performance), besides the R6 being new and the R being "old". It is not the IBIS.

[davidmanze]

The Z6 was announced two years ago ....... 

...... things have moved on since then ....... including prices !!

[faint]

Lol, puzzling post you make there.

"Against the Nikon Z6 we think the Canon has the slight edge. We'd argue for the Canon's control layout and flexibility over the Nikon (though it's within the realms of personal preference), but feel the R6 brings a little more to the table in most respects. Rolling shutter and the looming overheat limits mean it's not a clear-cut victory for the Canon in terms of video, but the results are superb (and the Nikon can't internally record 10-bit or 60p footage). The Canon shoots faster, has excellent stabilization and features such as HDRTV-ready HEIF capture. The R6's benefits add up to enough to justify the price difference but probably aren't great enough to overrule consideration of whether the lenses you want are available."

Omitting to mention in which aspects, you write.

• Control layout and flexibility
  
• superb video results
  
• 10-bit and 6-p footage
  
• shoots faster
  
• has excellent stabilization
  
• HEIF
  

So they actually mention quite a few things, even though the list of what the R6 does more/better is much longer.

Then you say double the price.
B&H Z6 price: ~1800. B&H R6 price: ~2500.

By the way, DPReview also wrote a review of the Z6. In case you really interested.

Just a few points:
Z6 does 9fps at 14 bit raw, 12 fps at 12 bit raw. R6 does 12 fps at 14 bit raw, 20 fps at 12 bit raw.
Z6 : 5.5fps for live view. R6: 8fps with live view feed.
Z6 RAW buffer capacity: 43. R6 buffer capacity: 240
Z6 AF low light sensitivity: -3.5 EV. R6 AF low light sensitivity: -6.5 EV
Z6: tilting LCD. R6: Swivel LCD
R6: dual memory card slots
R6: higher res. EVF
Z6: XQD. R6: SDXC.
R6: the great DPAF for video and stills. Z6: does not.

Whether you find the $700 price difference worth all that or not, is upto you of couse.

Please, help me to see the funny part.

First - I'm not comparing the cameras, I'm quoting DPR's conclusion. The things that you say I have forgot to mention, are not included in the review we are commenting on.

Next, I'm living in Europe, not US, so I'm comparing prices in EUR. Local pricing here suggests ~1580 EUR for the Z6 vs 2880 EUR for R6. Not to mention that Nikkor 1.8S lenses are way cheaper that Canon 1.2L lenses.

You also forgot to mention that the Z6 has the better sensor - more res, BSI design with faster readout for video and electronic shutter; has better colors and more color depth.

There are no reports for overheating Z6 either.

Dual SD card slot is arguably better than XQD. The latter is more reliable and faster, which also puts the buffer depth into question. Yes, the cards are more expensive, but I got mine for free with my Z.

Ergonomics is a matter of taste in this case.

FPS does not matter for me past certain point - I find Z6 fast enough for my needs. I don't know what you are going to do with 20 fps given the excessive rolling shutter on the R6

I also don't have a TV, so I don't care about HEIF either. Web browsers, RAW converters, and printers don't support HEIF as well, so it's a gimmick at the moment.

Things that you are wrong about:

• Z6 actually has a low-light AF mode, with sensitivity down to -6 EV vs -6.5 of the Canon
  
• EVF's have the same res, maybe you are comparing against the R5, which costs EUR 5000... But the Z6 has 120 fps and higher magnification, plus the back LCD screen has 2.1k dots vs 1.6k dots on the Canon
  
• R6 has faster AF, and that's the only real advantage, but it's not a night and day difference. With the latest firmware, Z6 is not too far behind. Plus Nikkor lenses are very well optimized for video, just like Lumix S Pro lenses, with minimal focus breathing and most zooms are close to parfocal. Plus - professional video is rarely made using AF. It's more of a vlogger thing
  
• Buffer capacity is on paper - the Z6 will be able to flush the buffer faster on the XQD/CFExpress card than the R6 to a SD card. Good luck finding UHS-II card at a reasonable price...
  
• R6's IBIS rating of 8 stops is when paired with an optical stabilization. It took Canon 2 more years to come up with IBIS than Nikon.
  

So, it's easier to have this conversation when the R6 is brand new, and Z6, A7III are several years old already. Let's have the same conversation when we see their updates later this year (hopefully).

For me, given the price difference in Europe, given that the Z6 is the better all-round camera, if I had to pick a system today, I would still go with Nikon because it's not one trick pony.

If the price was equal, I might give it a thought...

[Rover]

The R6 looks interesting - a far cry from the usual associations I have with the "6" number in the Canon bodies from the times of the original 6D - but the Nikon Z looks a more adaptable platform. Maybe in a few years time when I become better off but unwilling (or incapable) to drag the big cameras around all the time, I'd do a comparison of second-hand mirrorless bodies and choose one that doesn't break the bank.

[Brightcolours]

You are right, the view finder resolution info was wrong on a website and made me think it was quite a bit lower than it is. Both do 120fps.


The AF is not only faster, in video it is a lot smoother. Professional manual focus video often is shot with professional video equipment, not that much with photo cameras anyway. And when MF is used, mostly professional video lenses are used too.

The 1st option after searching for UHS-II V90 cards gave me a €58,49 price for 64gb. Pretty reasonable?

The IBIS for the Canon R6/R5 is.. smooth, for video. Almost as if you use a gimbal. That is what makes it better... Not talking about "stops". No idea why you feel you mention that the Z6 was 1st?
 
What is a given is that the R6 is the batter camera, albeit more expensive. I live in Europe too. The R6 costs €2739. Z6 €1699.