When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission. The Canon EOS R6 III's specs have prompted some people to wonder if its more expensive sibling is worth the extra.
Photo: Mitchell Clark
The Canon EOS R6 III takes over as Canon's mid-range, enthusiast-focused full-frame mirrorless model. It brings a number of updates and improvements over the Mark II, including faster readout, more extensive video capabilities and a higher resolution sensor.
This boost in pixel count closes some of the gap between the R6 series and the more expensive R5 series. The EOS R5 II has a list price of $4400 (a substantial 57% premium over the R6 III) but, given it's been on the market nearly a year and a half and the R6 III is just hitting the shelves, the delta between the two is often smaller.
So, what is the real-world difference? And does anyone really need the more expensive camera?
Image quality
The EOS R5 II is based around a 45MP Stacked CMOS sensor, which can be read-out in 1/160 sec in 14-bit mode, with relatively little impact on image quality. It maxes-out at 30 fps shooting.
By comparison, the EOS R6 III has an FSI sensor, that drops to 12-bit readout for its e-shutter mode. This takes around 1/75 sec to read out its sensor, meaning it takes nearly twice as long, but it's able to shoot at up to 40 fps. We've not yet had an opportunity to fully test it, but we'd expect the move to 12-bit readout to limit its dynamic range in e-shutter mode, meaning noisier deep shadows and less room for adjustment.
As ever, it's worth considering whether your shots that need to be shot at 40 fps are the same ones that require maximum DR. If you're not shooting fast-moving subjects that you then expect to make significant tonal edits to, at base ISO, then this may not be a meaningful restriction to your shooting.
Body and handling
The more expensive EOS R5 II has a top-plate display and a mode button, rather than mode dial, if you like that sort of thing. It also has a weather-sealed hotshoe cover that's a pain to remove.
Photo: Richard Butler
The outward designs of the EOS R5 II and R6 III are pretty similar, with the most visible difference being the provision of a top-plate status LCD on the R5 II. Some people love a status display, especially when shooting the camera from a tripiod, others see them as a vestigial hangover from late-era film cameras, that didn't have full settings displays in the viewfinder and on a tilt-out rear screen.
The bigger difference is that the EOS R5 II has a magnesium alloy shell, as Canon's pro-grade cameras typically have, whereas the R6 III has a polycarbonate shell on a mag-alloy chassis. For most people this isn't going to be a meaningful difference: large numbers of people buy mid-range cameras and there aren't floods of reports of them breaking, physically. The R5 II is certainly more likely to survive the rough-and-tumble of life in the company of a photojournalist or even the rigours of attending weddings, week-in, week-out, but as an enthusiast, you'll be fine as long as you make some effort to look after either camera. There's not much of a weight saving for this difference, though: the R6 III is just 6% lighter than the R5 II.
The EOS R5 II's enormous-looking viewfinder is a result of the sensor used for Eye Control AF. And if it works for you, it's brilliant.
Photo: Richard Butler
Another critical difference is that the EOS R5 II has a higher-resolution viewfinder. Both have optics delivering 0. 76x magnification but the R6 III uses a 3. 69M dot (1280 x 960px) panel, rather than the 5. 76M dot (1600 x1200px) panel in the R5 II. And, built into the R5 II's viewfinder is the eye-detection system that you can use to position your AF point, or select a subject to track. We've had mixed experiences with 'eye-control' AF but when it works, it's excellent, making the R5 II the quicker camera to work with.
Continuous shooting
The EOS R5 II's electronic shutter can shoot at up to 30fps, compared with the R6 III's 40fps, but the R5 II captures more resolution with greater bit-depth and less rolling shutter.
Canon EOS R5 II | F3. 2 | 1/1250 sec | ISO 640
Photo: Richard Butler
The Canon EOS R6 III can shoot at faster rates than its higher res sibling. Both max-out at a very respectible 12fps in mechanical shutter mode but, as is becoming standard, it's the electronic shutter modes that deliver the fastest performance.
The R6 III can shoot at 40fps in electronic shutter mode, while the R5 II can only hit 30fps: a rate that's slower in approximate proportion to its higher resolution. However, this isn't the whole story: the R5 II's Stacked sensor can read out much faster than the R6 III's can, with a rolling shutter time of 6. 3ms, compared to 13. 5ms, despite having to read out more pixels.
This faster shutter (taking 1/159 sec to open and close, compared with around 1/74 sec) is also delivered while reading the pixels' output in 14-bit mode, capturing closer to the camera's full dynamic range, whereas the R6 III is having to drop to 12-bit readout mode to achive such speeds. For most applications this won't especially matter, but it highlights how much quicker and more advanced the more expensive sensor in the R5 II is.
It's also the reason Canon allows the R5 II to use flash in e-shutter mode: it can sync at shutter speeds as fast as 1/160 sec, whereas the you have to use the mechanical shutter mechanism to use flash on the R6 III.
Autofocus
Canon promises the use of AF algorithms from the R5 II in the R6 III, so its autofocus performance should be broadly comparable. We've not yet had a chance to directly test them alongside one another, so can't comment on any differences.
However, the EOS R5 II has the "AI" co-processor used in the flagship R1 sports model, which the R6 III lacks. At the very least, this allows the R5 II to deliver Canon's 'Action Priority' AF mode that's been trained to recognize key moments in a number of popular sports, so that the camera follows the most relevant player at key moments. The EOS R6 III shares all its subject recognition modes with the R5 II but doesn't get quite as clever, for key sports.
Battery life
Both cameras use the same LP-E6P battery, and can use older batteries with some feature restrictions and reduced battery life.
Photo: Mitchell Clark
Both cameras are built around the same 16Wh LP-E6P battery and, despite having very different sensors and viewfinders, both cameras deliver very similar battery life figures. The EOS R6 III has a rated battery life of 270 shots via the viewfinder, compared with the R5 II's 250, wheras the R5 II pulls ahead if you use the rear screen. Despite using a higher-resolution panel (2. 1M dots vs 1. 62M), the R5 II hits a rating of 540 shots per charge, to the R6 III's 510.
These numbers are subject to the usual caveats about the eccentricities of the CIPA battery standard (in practice most people will regularly get many more than the rated value), and both cameras offer more efficient 'economy' modes. The difference is that, while a sub-300 shot rating is disappointing in an ethusiast model, it's downright concerning in a camera that pros are likely to use more heavily. If your usage is intensive, you'll need a second battery or a suitable USB PD charging bank for either camera.
The pro-grade distinction
Eye-control AF, Action Priority AF, the more substantial construction and the faster, higher-res sensor will be enough to sway a lot of pros towards the EOS R5 II, but the level of support those users recieve goes beyond this.
Both cameras can be used with the same add-on BG-R20 battery grip. However, the Ethernet capability of the BG-R20P verion only works with the EOS R5 II (the R6 III can still use its battery and portrait orientation control points), so pros needing add-on Ethernet will have to opt for the EOS R5 II.
Additional features
A 179MP JPEG created by "AI" upscaling in the EOS R5 II
In addition to the Action Priority AF mode, the EOS R5 II offers two "AI" trained post-processing options that are delivered using the dedicated co-processor. The first allows you to apply more sophisticated noise reduction to Raw images shot with the camera. The second allows JPEGs to be upscaled to 179MP resolution.
Video
The most obvious difference between the two cameras on the video front is that the EOS R5 II has enough pixels to deliver 8K footage, whereas the R6 III doesn't. However, like most other Stacked sensor camera, the EOS R5 II can't use its fastest readout modes for its video capture, so it doesn't have a crushing advantage over the cheaper camera, in terms of rolling shutter. Its figure of 12. 8ms for oversampled 'Fine' 4K is better than the R6 III's nearer 20ms when it generates its 4K from 7K capture. The EOS R6 II offers a 4K/60 'Fine' mode, which the R5 II doesn't, but Canon says this may not match the quality of the oversampled footage captured at 30p and slower, so we won't assume this to be a benefit until we've had a chance to look closer at the output.
Beyond this the two camera's feature sets are pretty similar: Raw video capture and support tools such as waveforms and false color displays. Both cameras have fairly limited recording times for their more ambitious video modes. The difference is that the R5 II can be used with the CF-R20RP fan grip, whereas the R6 III can't.
The EOS R5 II can use the optional CF-R20RP fan unit, the R6 III can't.
Image: Canon
Of course if video is your primary concern, Canon offers the video-focused, fan-cooled EOS C50 as part of its Cinema EOS line, offering a more comprehensive set of video modes and extended recording times derived from a similar sensor to the one in the R6 III.
Summary
The EOS R6 III doesn't easily perform all the roles of the R5 II but it's more likely to end up in more people's hands.
Photo: Mitchell Clark
Unsurprisingly, the closer you look, the more advantages and benefits the EOS R5 II offers over its enthusiast sister model. For the most demanding users, these differences add up, and it's unlikely that the EOS R6 III would make a sensible alternative.
But for the majority of people who enjoy photography but don't have to make a living from it, the R6 III offers an awful lot of Canon's latest technologies in a much more affordable package. We doubt the arrival of the R6 III is going to make any meaningful dent in R5 II sales, but it puts a lot of its capabilities in a lot more people's hands.
. dpreview.com2025-11-18 18:00
