Canon R6 vs. EOS R for LANDSCAPES: Is 20 MP Enough?!

[@blisteringbooks2428]

As a professional I was using 4mp for years, and making 20"x16" prints without worrying. You are not going to look at a print from 6" unless you want to pick out daft discrepancies. Another point is that few people are using lenses that resolve much over 20mp so if you have a 50mp sensor you are chasing rainbows. I found that when comparing a 5D3 to a 7D2, the first obvious difference was the crop sensor was softer. As with many vendors, camera manufacturers do upgrades to make you buy more often, even when it is unnecessary. You don't need a computer that does 0-60 in a micro second when all you are doing is using Word, likewise you don't need an R5 if you only ever post on social media.

[@MattRamseyTube]

All neat points, hopefully the testing in the video showed when the extra resolution is helpful for those who want it.

[@redpillnibbler4423]

Excellent points.

[@redpillnibbler4423]

Honestly I’m considering the R6 or the R and feel 20mp is plenty for large prints when viewed at an appropriate distance (possibly depending on the subject matter?)

[@MattRamseyTube]

That’s a great point; with some distance, resolution becomes less important. But I did want to be clear that it’s not as if there’s “no difference” as some have described-there was a clear distinction between the two prints, and you’ll have to decide what’s right for the way people view your work. When I show prints at art shows, people pick them up and look at them very close-much less than an arms length!-and I do like to be able to let them do that, so I always appreciate more resolution.

[@redpillnibbler4423]

@@MattRamseyTube I understand what you mean 👍

[@throughmichaelslensphotogr2000]

How would you like to test the r6 and the r with rf glass ? Ef glass is further away from the sensor than ef glass . Then you add the adapter which moves it further away . Still takes great shots . I feel the r will be even better with landscape with its native glass . Same goes for any r line camera.

[@MattRamseyTube]

Well thanks again for lending me the camera--I suspect the handheld stabilization test in particular might yield a different result with an RF lens, but I'm confident in the IQ testing with the adapted lens--the 16-35mm f/4 is one of the more recent and well-regarded EF releases, and most scientific testing on camera sensors are done with adapted lenses for consistency, a few millimeters of air notwithstanding. But maybe one day we can test that assumption too!

[@muffindell]

R stabilised lenses work in harmony with a R body that has IBIS and will always work better than an adapted EF lens. With regards to resolution and making prints, the larger the print the further the viewing distance will be, you just don't see the lack of resolution, just look at billboards, the resolution is terrible but at the distance that you view the image it looks perfectly fine

[@neildickie6278]

Very informative, thanks! I'd be interested in what you would find if you added one more point of comparison--compare the R6 and R at same higher ISO levels, AFTER PROCESSING FOR NOISE. I think that although higher megapixel cameras produce more noticeable noise in the RAW file, because of their greater resolution, once you process them, the result is more similar to files from a lower megapixel camera. I was really impressed by the ISO performance of my Canon R5 after a night of astrophotography last summer--I liked the image quality better than I've seen on the Canon 5D4 and the Canon 6D. It looked cleaner, more vivid in color. Of course, the R5 has a newer sensor, and that is a big factor. But I have heard from others that after processing, larger megapixel full frame cameras compare much more favorably to lower megapixel ones. I would speculate that you would see less of a difference between high ISO files from the Canon R and R6 after processing.

[@MattRamseyTube]

Thanks for that - All the cameras had the default Adobe Lightroom noise processing applied, and I honestly suspect the EOS R noise is from its older 2017-era sensor design rather than it’s higher resolution, and I think my R8 comparison drive that home for me.

[@forsterstewartphotography2950]

Most lenses can't keep up with sensors over 24 megapixles . The resolving power of most lenses just can't attain the sharpness needed for 50 mp sensors. Although the name brand camera manufacturers have developed alot of fine glass recently Canons 11-24 ,16-35 mm f4 and Canon 16-35 mm f2.8 version 3 are all very sharp wideangle zooms.

[@MattRamseyTube]

That’s a great point, Forster-shooters looking to take advantage of high-res cameras should be factoring in the cost of capable lenses as well. Thanks for adding that!

[@ChristopherMay]

Would love to hear more about the R’s user interface. When that was announced, I was mildly curious about it since it was new and different. Sometimes new and different works out; witness what the T90 did for Canon. The flip side is that sometimes that you get a Nikon N70, a camera that is still derided for its miserable user interface decades later. It seems like the R leans a little more towards the N70 side, though not as dramatically as that. More and more I’m finding that it doesn’t matter how good a camera is technically, if I have to spend my time fighting it to make pictures, it’s all for nought. There are ways to work around image quality shortcomings (blended images for lack of dynamic range, stitched images for lack of resolution, etc) but overcoming bad UI is much more difficult. I look forward to seeing how the R7 stacked up, too. That should be a fun video!

[@MattRamseyTube]

Total agreement there--typically Canon cameras strike a good balance for me between simplicity and complexity but the R errs quite a bit on the side of simplicity. It's a worthwhile experiment to pare down the camera to the basics but a third exposure control wheel, a dedicated video switch (you should see the convoluted procedure to switch between stills/video) and ANYTHING in place of the multi-function touch bar would make getting the shot with this camera a lot more pleasant. The controls are just a hair less than the basics.

[@jordanramsey89]

How many megapretzels?!?

[@MattRamseyTube]

Twelve megapickels. Sir.

[@gman-ds9ur]

Unique title, have not seen that yet.

[@MattRamseyTube]

😂

[@MattRamseyTube]

Well what works works 😂

[@StartreckTu]

Anything above 33mpx is pointless. I have a 12 mp D700 and Canon R6 and both are pretty great and can take prints.

[@MattRamseyTube]

Nice!

[@tomd4748]

👏🏼

[@frankanderson5012]

People have been taking beautiful landscapes for over a hundred years, long before 30 megapixel cameras. Only photographers sit and look at an image and think more about the so called detail of the photograph rather than it’s impact. I’ve heard this same tired argument over the last 15 years only with lower resolution cameras. In a few years time we’ll hear it again only 30 or 50 megapixels won’t be enough. There are plenty of videos of comparing printed images, one on a lower megapixel camera, the other on a higher and most people can’t tell the difference. 99.9% of people when seeing a image, any image, will see it for its impact, beauty and how it makes them feel. They won’t give a damn about how many megapixels went into it and they certainly won’t be sticking their face right up to the image inspecting it’s resolution.

[@MattRamseyTube]

Why not-they can!