Canon R6 III R6 III vs R5 II for Macro

[glosardo]

For those of you who shoot macro with both R6 III and R5 II, do you really notice any difference in resolution and sharpness when performing a deep crop? Would I truly see a dramatic difference with the R5 II?

 

[Dean Wilson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't an images quality come from the lens, while the camera provided features, so the camera feature then would be the sensor size and pixel density, everything else being equal (same lens photographing side by side) for a deep crop: R5 MKII.

Let me see if I can find a YouTube video that explains it better than I.

 

[jcass]

For those of you who shoot macro with both R6 III and R5 II, do you really notice any difference in resolution and sharpness when performing a deep crop? Would I truly see a dramatic difference with the R5 II?

I doubt that any difference would be noticeable above a pixel level inspection. So, in general the my answer is no. But what is the reason for you question? Do you have a specific need or use-case? I have an R5 II, but not an R6 III or any other camera for comparison. My guess is that both are fully capable in most scenarios.

Are you making a buying decision? If not, give us more context on the reason why for your question.

 

[glosardo]

I doubt that any difference would be noticeable above a pixel level inspection. So, in general the my answer is no. But what is the reason for you question? Do you have a specific need or use-case? I have an R5 II, but not an R6 III or any other camera for comparison. My guess is that both are fully capable in most scenarios.

Are you making a buying decision? If not, give us more context on the reason why for your question.

I'm slowly delving into insect macro photography, particularly obtaining closeups of insect facial characteristics. When using a 100mm macro lens (Canon RF), this objective inevitably involves some aggressive cropping. Initial attempts with my R6 III have shown promise with very acceptable resolution and sharpness. So now I'm wondering if using an R5 II, with everything its 45mp sensor allegedly offers, would noticeably improve my results. If I can be reasonably sure that it would, then I'll start saving money to put towards an R5 II purchase. And I want to be sure that such a purchase would fill a photographic need and not be based on GAS and craving a new shiny toy. I hope this explains the reason for my question. Let me know if you need further details.

 

[MSH411]

I've been using the R6 MkIII when I go out just to carrying a lighter setup but next time out I will take a run at it with the R5MkII and see if the additional MP's help.

These are from today with R6 MkIII with at least a 60% crop.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[glosardo]

I've been using the R6 MkIII when I go out just to carrying a lighter setup but next time out I will take a run at it with the R5MkII and see if the additional MP's help.

These are from today with R6 MkIII with at least a 60% crop.

View attachment 47967

View attachment 47968

I've been using the R6 MkIII when I go out just to carrying a lighter setup but next time out I will take a run at it with the R5MkII and see if the additional MP's help.

These are from today with R6 MkIII with at least a 60% crop.

View attachment 47967

View attachment 47968

Thank you! Looking forward to seeing your results!

 

[Archibald]

I'm slowly delving into insect macro photography, particularly obtaining closeups of insect facial characteristics. When using a 100mm macro lens (Canon RF), this objective inevitably involves some aggressive cropping. Initial attempts with my R6 III have shown promise with very acceptable resolution and sharpness. So now I'm wondering if using an R5 II, with everything its 45mp sensor allegedly offers, would noticeably improve my results. If I can be reasonably sure that it would, then I'll start saving money to put towards an R5 II purchase. And I want to be sure that such a purchase would fill a photographic need and not be based on GAS and craving a new shiny toy. I hope this explains the reason for my question. Let me know if you need further details.

What settings are you thinking of using? Maybe f/14? That is a reasonable aperture for a FF camera to get some depth of field.

At f/14, you will be experiencing significant diffraction softening. The image at the focal plane becomes softer due to diffraction, even while the image away from the focal plane becomes sharper due to more DOF. So even with lots of diffraction softening, f/14 might be a good choice because of the improvement in DOF.

The maximum possible resolution is limited mainly by the pixel dimensions and by the diffraction. The pixel pitches are 5.2 and 4.4 μm for the R63 and R52. By comparison, the size of the Airy disk is approx 18 μm for both, around 3 times as big. The extra pixel count of the R52 won't hurt, but its advantage in this situation will be tiny, maybe unnoticeable. So my estimation is that the two cameras will give about the same resolution.

But if you crop, and you say you will crop, things get stickier. Diffraction becomes more noticeable and DOF shrinks. The only way around it is to use a wider aperture and do focus stacking. With a wider aperture, the Airy disk becomes smaller. Resolution improves. Depending, that might give the R52 a noticeable advantage.