Canon R6 II vs R5 Image Quality Tests
For this test, I compared the 24 Megapixel Canon R6 II to the 45 Megapixel Canon R5 to see how they compared when printed at 100 ISO and 10,000 ISO. I have used cameras over the past 17 years ranging from 20 to 102 megapixels and looked through well over 1,00,000 images in thousands of different environments. I wanted to see how different these two cameras were when it comes to ink and paper and not just pixels on a screen.
You can Download the RAW and Jpeg Sample Images HERE. So you can draw your own conclusion.
I cropped 22×17 and recomposed the crops so the images would look as close as possible for print. I used the Canon Prograf-1000 with 22×17″ Canon Pro Luster Paper and Ink Owl’s refill kit for the ink.
Resolution Comparison When Printed
For the first test, I used the Canon RF 70-200mm @ f2.8 100 ISO and 1/400th. I photographed and composed as identically as possible. I enhanced the Canon R6 II photo, which doubles the resolution on the short and long end quadrupling the overall pixel count. Some Adobe magic… So in the end the pixel resolutions are as R5 5465 x 8192, R6II 4000 x 6000, R6 II “Enhanced Super Resolution” 8000 x 12,000. You’ll see in the video I can’t really tell the difference other than some perspective and depth of field form the medium format to the APS-C sensor. In my opinion, the X-T5 is an inane powerhouse for such a small package.
High ISO Comparison When Printed
For this second test, I wanted to compare the high ISO capabilities when printed. I know that the GFX is the best high-ISO performer when looking at pixels, but I wanted to see what happened when I print them. These images were taken with the Canon 28-70mm at 70mm, F2.0, 1/200th, and 10,000 ISO. The room was pretty dark and we both held really still. I’ve also included an Enhanced Nois Recustion photo of the R5 in the sample images. The Canon R6 II holds up against grain a bit better in these images but once you apply the new Lightroom Denoise feature they both look amazing. I still think that they don’t look bad at all for 10,000 in their original state. It’s all very impressive when you compare it to the original Canon 5D that I stated with in 2006.
