You know, that is really interesting. Is tracking better with larger pixels or smaller? We might learn by comparing tracking between the two. It did surprise me that EOLs like Rick Sammon was given the R6. I actually assumed that was due to the 600 f/11 and 800 f/11 he also reviewed and Canon wanted him to demonstrate the more entry level package.Originally Posted by Joel Eade
As for ISO performance between the two, my money is that there is negligible to no difference. Before microlenses, smaller pixels let in less light because of the physical sidewalls of the pixels was essentially negative space. The light just bounced right off of it and was not captured. But, since microlenses capture that light and redirect it to the actual pixel well, I haven't seen much difference in noise between same sized sensor. Microlenses are not 100% efficient, nothing is, but they are really good and getting better.
So, the R6 has the same sensor as the 1DX III. It is every so slightly better than the 5DIV. I was attributing that to some ever so slight enhancement in sensor tech. But, if it is the same sensor tech, and pixel size difference, then the R5 should be slightly lower. What gets interesting is would the R5 actually have a better noise pattern due to the smaller pixels? Time will tell.
Reply With Quote