Why is the quality of the Canon R6 Mark 2 grainy when compared to a DSLR image (vs. Canon 6D)?

[LouD]

When I look at photos from my new mirrorless Canon R6 Mark II vs. my old DSLR Canon 6D the images from the R6 are terribly dirty and 'digital' looking, especially when zoomed in, even just a little!?

I understand that ISO and light plays a huge part of whether a photo is grainy or not, and that is NOT the solution to my inquiry. What I'm seeing is something that is showing up whether I'm shooting at 100 ISO or 3200 ISO. It's a grainy look, and I think to myself "this cannot be right...I would much rather blow up a CR2 from my 6D rather than use any of CR3's from my R6..."

I purchased a Canon R6 Mark II because I had read (and been told by folks who have mirrorless Sony's) how the mirrorless handles low light better etc. I decided to get a Canon version because I'm familiar with the brand, own a number of lenses, am familiar with the operating system and heard good things about this R6 Mark II version. 

Are other people experiencing this? Is there some setting in the camera that can be switched to make this better? I feel like this literally can't be something everyone is excited about...it must be something that I haven't switched off or on....I shoot RAW + JPG, and yes, once I have the RAW file I mess around with the images settings, but I know what was possible with the DSLR images and what I could push...and it's just not true of these RF images. 

Help!? 

I've attached a sample comparison image (I'm not going to provide the details of the images, because for my purposes, it doesn't matter. What I see in the quality is happening if shooting at 100 ISO or 4000 ISO, so I'm not looking to be told "use a smaller ISO or more light"). I use Canon lenses, some are RF (when using the R6 Mark II body) and some are EF (with a Canon adaptor). 

I have a comparison image attached - The left is of food and the right is lace from a dress. They both have been zoomed in on 110%. The left image (bowl of food) is with the R6 Mark II and the right (dress) is with the 6D. 

If you look at the bowl of food, it's not exactly 'pixelation' that's happening, its some sort of grain or color spotting that is creating the image in a way I've seen iPhones build an image.... I can only refer to it as a very 'digital' look. The lace, is handling the dark areas much more gracefully and could be pushed farther if needed.

It's not the quality I would expect of Canon, so I'm assuming I must be doing something wrong? Is this a setting? Do I need to turn something off or on? Is this just the way mirror cameras look (if so, I don't think I want it anymore). 

What's up? 

[Peter]

Create a new topic with raw files from your cameras if you have an issue.

[jmphoto9]

no need this is just a Prosumer camera, i don't think it is "defective" files of faces at 200mm are not usable outdoors. indoor pix are tack sharp.  just a comment for those considering -may want to pick a different body if your needs are pro.  i chose this due to horrible battery life on R5. will trade up within the year.

[justadude]

Reading over your post, I do not see any mention of lenses, which can play a huge difference.  So in addition to same subject, same lighting, same settings on everything, you also need to compare with the same lenses.

I have recently sold my 6D and my RP.  I have also recently purchased the R6 Mark ll.  Looking at RAW files side by side of night skies (away from light pollution) with all three cameras, and all three using my Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 lens, ISO at 3200, for 30 seconds... The old 6D was a nighttime beast.  With 13 years old technology, the files are similar in noise with the 4 year old RP (but just a slight bit noisier at 100% view).  However the R6 Mk2 has a very noticeable improvement over both of the other cameras.

I also had to look at files from all three cameras using my Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 at ISO 100 on daylight photos.  Pretty much the same results for noise and/or pixelization. 

[Philnick]

The attached photos tell us nothing. The food picture appears to have been taken with a wide-open lens that has a razor-thin depth of field, as only the meat sticking up high from the plate and some of the peppers are in focus. The other picture appears to have a greater depth of field.

Grain is most noticeable in areas without details to draw attention away from the grain - solid colors or out of focus objects. By the way, at the size of your attachments - even when taken to full screen - no grain is obvious anyway. There are out of focus edges of the dinner plate, but not obvious grain.

[p4pictures]

What software are you using to view these JPG images, and are they the JPG images that the camera created, or ones you created using an application on your computer? Which application if they were converted from RAW to JPG on the computer?

Window Photos app that is accessed from Windows Explorer does automatically "enhance" photos, and sometimes it does not do a good job. 

[Waddizzle]

Brian,

I believe this thread to be dead.  The OP made the initial post and never responded.  I began typing a reply when the thread was first posted, but got pulled away.  I went into my profile the next day to finish my reply, by which time the post had been edited from 60D to a 6D, as well expanded narrative.  It was as it the OP had replied to the initial replies by editing the original post.

I believe the original post ended with the word “Help?”  Everything past that is the apparent response to the first two replies.

Again, I would consider this thread as dead until the OP actually replies to the comments.