5 Reasons to Avoid the Canon EOS R6

5 Reasons to Avoid the Canon EOS R6

Pegged to be the mirrorless equivalent of the 6D Mark II, the EOS R6 could fall at the first hurdle when it comes to stills resolution and extra features that is simply lacks.
Fortunately for Canon, they’ve got a wide range of mirrorless cameras now, but the EOS RP still takes the crown for the most affordable full frame mirrorless camera. Sure, the EOS R6 may be an improvement on the two year old EOS R, but is it enough to inspire customers to buy? Let’s take a look at five reasons why you may want to avoid it.

Low Resolution Stills

Canon EOS R6 rear

Unfortunately the EOS R6 has only 20MP stills images, compared with the 45MP stills its superior twin the EOS R5 can shoot

Most photographers with current equipment are getting more used to the 30MP and 40MP standard that DSLRs and mirrorless cameras consistently set. Unfortunately, the R6 tops out at 20MP which is a lot lower. That means fewer opportunities for cropping in and retaining good detail in stills. But it’s important to bear in mind that the flagship 1D X Mark III also shoots 20MP stills, so resolution isn’t everything.

No 8K Movie Recording

Canon EOS R6 recording

Internal 4K UHD movie recording at 60FPS on the EOS R6 is good, but limited

The R6 has limited video recording options compared with the R5. It can shoot 4K UHD, but tops out at 60FPS instead of the faster 120FPS of its beefier twin. This has damned its future-proofness as a serious contender for the newer mirrorless market, especially as more bodies are brought out in the coming years.

Poorer EVF

Canon EOS R6 body with lens

An acceptable electronic viewfinder in the EOS R6 is not as good as its bigger brother, the EOS R5

Compared to the R5 the electronic viewfinder display on the R6 has lower resolution (3.96 million dots) and half the frame rate (60FPS). This means a less crisp image, and a slower, blurrier view through the viewfinder. It’s still okay, but when you consider the Nikon Z 6 has a similar EVF and it was launched nearly two years ago, it does make you wonder why it isn’t better.

Video Quality

Canon EOS R6 body only

Raw video footage means better flexibility in post-production video editing, which the EOS R6 sadly lacks

If color grading and finely-tuned tweaking of video footage is your thing, then the R6 may not be right for you. Raw shooting means a higher dynamic range and ability to adjust parameters accurately, and that’s something the R6 simply doesn’t have.

It Lacks a Top LCD Screen

Probably due to price point the R6 lacks a top LCD screen most other cameras have. This is quite a useful piece of hardware as it allows a quick glance at camera settings without bringing the camera to the eye, and that’s useful if you’re shooting on a tripod at an awkward height.

Now, to be fair to Canon, this is the cheaper option out of the two newly announce mirrorless cameras the EOS R6 and EOS R5, so of course they won't have the same features. But do the lack of features really warrant the $1400 price difference? Perhaps users would've been happier with slightly more features, for a little more cost. That said, the two new cameras also have to fit into the current Canon mirrorless ecosystem.

Log in or register to post comments


Stuart Carver's picture

The front page of Fstoppers looks pretty ridiculous right now with 3 articles all from the same author entitled '7 reasons to' and '5 reasons not to'

much the same as the other day where 2 articles, one praising the XT4 and one slating it were separated by a single article.

Zach Ashcraft's picture

"Two reasons to never read Fstoppers again"

Stuart Carver's picture

hahaha i just pointed out the same thing... ridiculous.

Matthew Lacy's picture

I found that a little ridiculous as well. Possibly they could have been combined into one article titled "The Pros and Cons of the Canon EOS R6".

Jan Holler's picture

IMHO, that is a bit nitpicking.

Deleted Account's picture

Never heard of a Pros and Cons list?

Stuart Carver's picture

On the same article yes, and not labelled as reasons to buy or not buy, it doesn’t need to be that polarised.

Deleted Account's picture

But it does need to get clicks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Glen Barrington's picture

20 mp seems state of the art to us m43s shooters! But seriously, These ALL seem like reasonable compromises for the typical amateur enthusiast photographer to make. Isn't that what this camera was designed for?

Joel Hazel's picture

Huh. Kind of expected more from this article. : /

paul unwin's picture

What a terrible article, its not news anyone can read a spec sheet, do you really think your going to get the specs of the R5 for R6 money, at least people have a choice.

John Roberts's picture

Those are the exact reasons I am really interested in this camera!

Christian Leibig's picture

Holy shit, the quality of this article is atrocious.

"Low Resolution Stills":
Yeah, like those "low resolution images" you get from a 1DX Mark III, Nikon D5, Sony A9 (24MP, but whatever).

"No 8k":
You mean like all other affordable cameras on the market? You don't say? Your alternative here is a RED Monstro 8K VV for over 60k USD kitted out.

"Poorer EVF":
Can't say much to that, but Sony shooter have been getting by with less and they can still take images.

"Video Quality":
This point is exceptionally misleading. No one is going to shoot 8K RAW all the time, especially at the immense data rate. The 4k and lower video modes are all Clog on R5 and R6. Granted R5 has All-I and R6 "only" IPB, but I'm 100% certain the author of this article didn't even know that. Plus it does nothing noticeable for color grading.

"Lacks Top LCD":
This is about the only thing I'll give in on. I'd be missing the LCD, but it's far from the only camera without one.

What the R6 will be doing better:
Low Light performance due to a larger pixel size (native ISO up to 100k instead of 50k)...and even though that doesn't mean much on paper it shows you the confidence Canon has in the low light capabilities.

This article is pure clickbait.

Stuart Carver's picture

The EVF looks similar to the Fuji one which is awesome so yeah it’s basically talking rubbish

Al Gordon's picture

Ignoring these 5, which I think if the author looked more closely at would see that for a entry level or semipro full frame aren't really all that important, I have a couple of reasons to be concerned.
1. First and foremost the battery life. It's only rated to 220-330 shots. Even if you could double it in real world use what pro would want that at this point. It's as bad as the old Sony A7 II. No one wants to a bulging pocket filled with extra batteries to cover a wedding or event.
2. Why is it only 1 stop better in high iso compared to the r5? I was hoping for a low light monster. Something along the lines of what the original 6D was in the Canon lineup. However I should note we don't actually know yet how it holds up in real world use. I'm just basing it on what Canon released today.
3. To go along with the low light worries, I don't really understand what they did releasing f/11 tele lenses. Anyone who is shooting sports or wildlife - which what those lenses are intended for need to be shooting at 1/2000 or there abouts. That with f/11 in the shade and you are already bring your camera at around iso 10,000. I have serious doubts that this camera can shoot that without serious gain. Again purely based on what was released today. It is totally possible that this camera will have the low light ability of an A9 or 1dx II.
4. The price really bothers me. It's over priced for what it is. Im sure Canon will bring it to the $2000 price point by Christmas season which is more in line with what this should cost. After all isn't this camera supposed to be competing with the A7 III and Nikon Z6.
5. At 1.5 lbs it seems kind of heavy. I know this is a little nitpicky and definitely debatable. Just kind of still hoping that Canon could learn how to make a full frame mirrorless that isn't as heavy as their DSLRs. I'm pretty sure this is the same weight as the 6D II.

All that said, this is still an exciting announcement. I am really looking forward to the real world reviews once this starts shipping!

Lloyd Ambrose's picture

These are not reasons to avoid the camera. The R6 is currently better spec'd than the current leader (Panasonic S1H) for almost half the price. Plus the iso on the R6 is actually better than the R6 because the pixels are bigger. Who wrote this?

Charles J's picture

Meh. Aside from the missing top LCD screen - which Canon users are simply used to - this looks like a great camera. Someone will get their hands on this and fall in love. I'm also positive people will adapt to not having a top screen. With new cameras I can see Canon really tries to take care of its customers... and I'm a Sony shooter.

I'd be interested in an article with sample pictures and first-person experience using the Canon EOS-R6. Guess that'll come sometime later.

Jared Ribic's picture

I mainly shoot stills and the video I do is almost always 1080 at 24fps, so both thr R5 and R6 have video features I may not even use.

For stills I depend on the top LCD screen and wouldn't get the R6.

Akram Al-Wahabi's picture

just gave it a big meh (the article not the camera)

Akhilesh Vanam's picture

paid article.. 70 %of the sales would be of r6

Akhilesh Vanam's picture

is top lcd of any additional use as EVF can display

Nitin Pawar's picture

Seriously? I hope you really mean it. None of the argument make sense.

William Humber's picture

There's an error in your article, the R6 EVF also has a 120Hz refresh rate mode.

Roger Melen's picture

These are very valid differences for me as I chose to preorder the 45MP R5 rather than the 20MP R6. But different people will differ based on on how much they want to spend and what they take pictures of as well as how much workflow they will tolerate. I for one want as many pixels as my best "L" grade lenses can support which may exceed 50MP in future RF "L" glass. Do not make large prints but I do crop like crazy my images of fast moving objects to properly frame them and this can turn a 45MP into a 2MP image which is still useable for some of my shooting subjects. I like the idea of generating 35MP still images with a 30fps 8K video as a source to provide both good videos and still with one shooting of a video. Many events can not be re-enacted and the R5 can do this but not the R6. The user controls of the EOS R like the top side screen are like that on the the EOS R5 making the pair more ideal for easy going back and forth between the cameras The EOS RP interface is more paired with EOS R6 for easy use. I own now an EOS R and the compatability of the EOS R5 topside screen with that camera I own is very attractive to me.

John Halpern's picture

Sure, I wish there was a bit more resolution, but my gut feeling is that it should be fine. I shot magazine covers and had a couple of images blown up for billboards from frames shot on my Canon 20d (8mg.) back in the day. The most exciting thing for me about these new mirrorless bodies is the full frame AF ability. I'll finally be able to feel comfortable focusing on eyes and faces in the upper corners of the frame. Ever since I stopped using my manual focus film cameras almost 20 years ago that issue has been a thorn in my side when using my subsequent 5d-5d4 bodies. I'll be looking forward to reading the upcoming tests of the R5 + R6 over the next couple of months. After that I'll decide which way to go.

Roger Little's picture

Does anyone read this shit before it’s posted!?

W S's picture

Reason to avoid the R6: No 8k.
Wow, there's really only one camera that does 8k, so everyone should just buy the R5?
Meh. Trash article.

A Perez's picture

I was planning to buy the R6 as my first full frame camera. After reading this article, I'm still buying it.

More comments