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....
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
It’s hard to tell on RUclips, 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.
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.
"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 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.
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
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.
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 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?
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?🧐
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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...)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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.
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
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.
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. »
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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 😮😅
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
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.
"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
You mention there is no way to protect the images so there is an internal memory; is there no way to encrypt files on a memory card (on camera) and then have some kind of key to decrypt them on your computer?
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.
Leaking camera’s, that is why I always buy a water resistant camera.
Clever 👏
hahahha nice one
If anyone's wondering, I just googled and it's Kodak Alaris (UK) that has been sold, not Eastman Kodak (US, the film manufacturer).
Very true. Thank you.
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.
A high res version for wildlife and macro people like me...
For studio photography way better go with Fuji 100 mpxl medium format. Full frame it´s a small sensor now. plus you get 16 bit color depht in 80 iso
@@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.
The R5 II images have more noise, but also seem to have more detail.
That's likely cos Canon is applying sharpening to R5II RAW files using AI...
@@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....
@@RayValdezPhotography sharpening easier to apply via AI than NR...computational effort...
@@davepasternno… the baked in noise reduction has just been removed / reduced
@@davepastern AI or computer programming?
If someone needs to lift the shadows by 6 stops in pp, then there was something wrong with the camera settings.
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.
The photographer is probably not human.... or a noob
I’m a wedding photographer shooting lots of sunsets. To properly expose the sun, and a backlight subject I need all the dynamic range I can get!
@@I922sParkCir Good for you, but this camera isn’t for you.
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.
Maybe they could get around the compromises using wafer bonding to vertically stack components.
We need security features on all cameras.
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.
Why? do you lose yours or take it to dangerous places?
@@jukeboxjohnniejust going to a park can become dangerous.
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.
i think the R6 III is more a major frimware update for the R6 II and don't think it's an another camera
I hope so
The R6iii appears to be bits and pieces from the R3 and R5 . Presumably recycling technology from two soon-to-be discontinued cameras.
FYI if the R6 Mk3 has a fully stacked 24 MP sensor that is more than a firmware update.
@@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.
@@PaulWhite-zn9xx that is what I have read too.
It’s hard to tell on RUclips, 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?
Different lenses were used. 85 1.2 (R5ii) and 50 1.2 (R5). 85 is sharper.
@@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.
@@drummerg3331 yeah weird choice to switch lenses. Because of that you can really only compare noise
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.
"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.
Seems like Nikon it's gaining some pro sport photography market.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
If you use an outdoor flash you can actually get better dynamic range on the Z6iii 😂.
If you shoot at f/8😂
@@alphaandomega2709 same thing that happened with the R5II and A9III, speed vs DR.
@@bngr_bngr Z8 and Z9 are great for sports
The dynamic range trade off should be optional!!
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.
Canon should include a cooling fan system in the r6 mark 3, to avoid overheating problems.
The R5 dynamic range is fine, Go to photons to photos for scientific testing where you can compare R5 Mk2 to any other camera.
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]
After watching this, I'm happy to keep my two original R5s and wait for the R5-III.
I absolutely love my R6ii. It would take more than those rumors specs for me to consider an upgrade any time soon.
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
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.
Yeah totally agree.
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.
I knew it...I knew it Canon will mess up in R5 II in terms of low light performance.
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.
@@bigd7696 I knew someone would reply with something like this. Why should I need workarounds when the camera can just do it by itself?
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 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.
The 200 to 800 is available and my local camera store got one for me a month or so ago. However, they only received four.
200-800 is available in france, we’ve got 8 pieces in stock!
You need to order the lens and stop waiting for it to be in stock. Not too difficult, right?
@@Davitor1 I hold these companies to a higher standard - to deliver. It was not a difficult decision for me to switch camera brands.
Most of the time companies provide an estimated ship date with a back order product, not with Canon on the 200-800
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?
The samples with EF+6 are way sharper on the R5MKII, ok more noise but also more detail. So it is not clear that the ar5 had more DR...
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?🧐
GR8 idea
I am here to leak that Canon R6 III will ... have supply issues too.
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.
BT from the phone never works reliably. Adding GPS isn't particularly expensive; even the entry-level Nikon D5300 had it.
Wtf was that r5 vs r5ii comparison? Why the hell do they release worst image quality camera as an "upgrade"?
Learn what "worst" means first. How many people have the need to dramatically push the shadows? How many people even know what that means?
@michaels3003 thats pretty much why we buy this kind of camera where I come from. Low light performance.
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.
Tony ,so does that mean the R5 Mk II will be worse for wildlife photography than the original R5 .
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.
@@TonyAndChelsea Have you tested the R52 now and can you offer some advice on the dynamic range? is it an issue or not. Thx
Finally a camera implementing security features. We need more features and they need to be on all cameras, just like phones
lol. They don’t need camera gps to track us. They have us on cell phones for decades
Another new camera with poor dynamic range? Why? What are these companies doing?
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
オリンピックでのキヤノン、ソニー、ニコンの使用率はどうやって調べてたのでしょう？
情報源を探したのですが私には見つけられませんでした
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.
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.
We have to see real world results, but if this turns out to be the case, I fear canon sales on this will not be as exciting as predicted.
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
It looks sharper as well though.
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.
No Ill just get the R6MKII as a back up camera when the price drops after the release of the MKIII
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?
what is the point of passcode, when u can take out your sd card easily, do u want introduce encryption to sd card too?
Internal memory helps, but yes, storage should be encrypted just as it is on every modern computer and smartphone.
cancel your r5ii preorder and wait another 2 years for r5iii
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.
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.
What's with the 720 resolution? Weren't Tony & Chelsea all about "future proofing" their videos a while back?
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 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.
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.
Yeah I agree. Buying refurbished/ used gear seems to be the smart move since you can get a great deal.
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.
When I 1st read about the Ricoh spec and saw the password, I immediately think of you guys 😂
Interesting, why are the raw files different sizes and so small? I average 24MB raw with my R6 Mark II and that's a lot smaller sensor.
A camera with a password ..... finally !!!!
Honestly the R5II clarity with higher noise makes it look way better overall. AI denoise will fix that up nicely 🙂
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.
My watch and phone have always-on GPS... The Canon 6D II and Nikon D5300 had GPS. The Z9 has GPS. This is definitely a solvable problem.
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...)
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.
Has canon officially said that? or is it just that people assume it?
@@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
Excellent points.
@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.
Noise reduction and other features in raw files arent new. Sony and Fuji did it as well
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.
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.
Ahahahah serious dynamic issues? Where? It’s the same of Nikon Z8.
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.
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.
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
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!
I thought i heard somewhere that DR on r5 ii was suppose to be game changer, 16 stops or so 😔
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
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.
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
Current cameras could easily have software added for passwords
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.
Not to mention the millions of dollars of gear available for free use….
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. »
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
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?
Maybe a Canon EOS R or Nikon D810... remember you need some lenses and some lights for portraits.
When you test the r5 mkii would be good to see the dynamic range of the video.
I’m interested in the R6iii coming out so that the price of the R6ii can come down a bit
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.
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
Security? Geez I've seen so many professional photographer's images on eBay SD/CF cards it's insane. No-one ever wipes these.
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.
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
How easy would it be to just add a PIN or swipe pattern to firmware? Come on Big Camera. It's not hard.
I would get the R6 mark iii. I have a mark ii now...
I’d rather have leaked news about the R7 mark 2. So keen to get my hands on that thing.
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 😮😅
Drive encryption could do it
The password thing better be optional because there is a 100% chance that i forget my password.
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
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.
They the pentax with f3.5 wider apenture ,when olympus tg6 has f2 and also no A,S OR M mode
I have the original R6 and just ordered the R52...please tell me it will be better (using it for wildlife , mainly bird, photography)
Yeah it's totally going to be better for wildlife. Enjoy!
"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
On the R5 II- can a firmware update address dynamic range issues or is it a hardware chip issue?
Why are some Canon R5 mk II and Canon R5 Raw files from DR so small in size (e.g. 24 MB)?
You mention there is no way to protect the images so there is an internal memory; is there no way to encrypt files on a memory card (on camera) and then have some kind of key to decrypt them on your computer?
im looking forward to seeing what the R6 mkiii has in it when its released. if its better then the mk ii, ill probably buy it.
Been waiting for you guys to put the R5 Mkii through its paces. 👍🏻
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.