Thread 4477191

Currently have the Canon 90D and am searching for an upgrade. Goal was... to purchase the Canon r5, but hearing that the r6 mark 3 will be announced this autumn and for the same price of 2500, I'm not so sure anymore. I love the 90D but I need something for low light photography when doing landscape up north. Also I would like something fast for night rally sessions (CER 2025 was planned at awful times when the sun was gone). Dont like ISO below 400 on my 90D and had to cheat using video mode at 4k and frame grabbing.

What have you heard about the r6 mark 3? Would you pick it over the r5? I really want to get into full frame using my old lenses. Hopefully it's going to be too much of a change.

nobody has ever needed or actually benefited from $2000+ mirrorless sports photography memes. people shot aesthetically and artistically superior sports shit on DSLRs. 40fps e shutter doesn't help and canon's new sensors (r1, r3, r5ii, likely r6iii) have "please dont ding us, dpreview/dxomark" NR forced at every ISO because they are every bit as noisy as their DSLRs were, yet again, due to the noise/speed tradeoff.

basically you're paying $3k for the camera alone to have the same noisy sensor as a 5div with noise reduction forced into the raw itself, but at least it shoots at 40fps+ stills/120fps+ video which nobody fucking needed

the only people who actually need this shit are hollywood videographers using MILCs as crash cams that do decent slow motion video, and photo agencies that are employing increasingly incompetent (read: cheap, down to "working for free") "photographers" who merely need to be told to hold the button down and aim at jersey ##. did you see the photos from the last two olympics? lots of absolute trash

just get the r6ii when it's down closer to $1000. it's already overkill. and the original r6 has reliability issues.

>>4477191 (OP)
You don’t need it. I dare say, nobody does.
The 5DmkIV was already technologically excessive. Just, specs aside, large and with an inferior SLR design. Just get am r6ii/r5i.

>>4477191 (OP)
>1 whole stop advantage at the same ISO
Get a faster lens instead.
90D with a f/1.4 lens outperforms R6III with a f/2.8 lens. Your own graph proves it. The damn R6 II even gets less MP than the 90D so this is doubly true.

The R5 is a bit noisy. The MK3 should probably suit you well.

>>4477200
equivalence rarely occurs in real life scenarios and only applies to normalized whole image snr. per pixel snr affecting demosaic accuracy is not covered by equivalence. equivalence does not cover fixed pattern noise, dark current noise, etc, only photon shot noise, measured off normalized images.

if equivalence worked off p2p charts, the z6ii and z7ii would have the same visible noise characteristics. but they visibly do not. the z6ii doesn't even have the same noise characteristics as the a7c. the gfx100s exceeds equivalence by ~1 stop.

in real use the 90d will be worse 80-90% of the time at the sensor level, in addition to quality loss from shitty DSLR lenses, mirror slap, and the inherent autofocus inaccuracy of DSLRs resulting in a lower keeper rate. equivalent settings just don't happen most of the time. there's most often room for one setting to give and break the heccin scientifcally accurate test, even in low light.
>90D with a f/1.4 lens outperforms R6III with a f/2.8 lens
nobody does this shit.

i believe a few people actually went out of their way to prove this to you (a rarity, people usually dont keep their crop cope camera and dont have it around to test with). the only time equivalence might work is if you compare a canon rebel to a noisy canon 5dii and shrink the images to less than 1/2 the size that a standard computer screen is capable of handling.

Equivalence doesnt work. A d750 at iso 3200 takes nicer looking pictures than an om5 at iso 200. An r6ii will definitely btfo a 90d.

Pixel peep on dpreview if you’re a fool enough to but this is how it works with real photos in real world viewing conditions after real world editing. M4turds and APSCope can cope with AI but then it just looks like AI cope.

>>4477219
Mirrorlesscucks buy FF and then slap a pancake on it

>>4477230
*cupcake
The pancake lenses all suck balls.

>>4477193
>nobody has ever needed or actually benefited from $2000+ mirrorless sports photography memes
>nobody fucking needed
Wrong
>they are every bit as noisy as their DSLRs were
This is true

The old addage of "who gives a fuck" comes to mind.
Someone wants to spend $5000 on a blobmera? Cool, move on in life. My blobmera suits me fine, but oh wait I'm not a sportstographer better reee iit until I sell it for a leica or some shit.

>>4477247
Untrue, the RF 28mm f2.8 is unreasonably sharp for a pancake lens

It is, however, about the only sharp pancake lens on mirrorless if we don't account for M4/3

>>4477247
These "people" think they look better so they use them even though you get worse results than an APS-C with a 1.8 zoom

>>4477197
The 5D4 has a proven track record of longevity, whereas the R5 series already has the opposite.

>>4477299
I am very impressed with the rf 28 2.8, it does however lose contrast fast if you point it towards bright lights.

>>4477247
Nope, the 28mm is one of the best pancakes. Just because your mount doesnt have any doesnt mean they dont exist. It just means your mount is trash. Skill issue.

>>4477320
yeah honestly expecting pancake lenses that match standard lenses in anything without being a micro four thirdser is a tough ask
but
credit where credit is due
the RF 28mm is one of those lenses that might be someone's entire reason to move to Canon, it's stupid fucking good

>>4477328
fuck I'm searching for a normal/wide prime and I keep hearing everyone jerk the 28mm off like it owes them money.
I'm tempted to wait for the 45mm f/1.2 (if it exists) or get the 50mm f/1.8 because cheaper and brighter, but seriously all this talk of excelent pancake might make me get that instead

Its just the same snoy schizo desperately trying to convince everyone pancake lenses suck. Pretty sad.

>>4477428
>no, muh glorified body cap doesn't suck, reeeeee

>>4477299
>>4477247

heard you all talking shit, I am the best pancake lens of all time

>>4480830
Mirrorless camera technology truly peaked in 2012

>>4480830
I have this on my beater camera, its nice and pretty quick but its gets underwhelming desu

>>4477191 (OP)
>R6 Mark III caps out at 64,000 ISO
>Even the Mark II AND R8 go to 102400
Yes I know nobody is supposed to take photos at max ISO, but the fact they've lowered the ceiling means they've obviously bumped up readout speed for the sake of shit SNR and DR yet again.
Wait, it's the fucking sensor out of the C50, I almost completely overlooked that. If that doesn't tell you how this is going to perform then nothing will.

>>4481037

>>4481023
Explain what “underwhelming” means without feels or buzzwords