In this video I put the Canon R6 Mark III up against my Canon R6 Mark II with the kind of side-by-side testing I always do: same lens, same settings, and I’m looking at real image-quality differences—not marketing. Both bodies are my own (I bought them with my own money), so the big question is simple: is the extra $800 for the Mark III worth it for you? I break down the headline changes like 32MP vs 24MP, the Mark III’s upgraded video options (7K 60p 10-bit internal, open gate, and XAVC/HEVC), and a bunch of physical differences like full-size HDMI, paint/labels, extra submenus, and added weather sealing around the CFexpress area (which matters for heat). I also teamed up with 3D Wonders to scan both bodies and overlay the 3D data, and that’s where things get real for accessory compatibility—there are “lumps” and shape changes around the hot shoe and the back that can mess with cages. From there I test power (LP-E6P vs LP-E6NH), storage and buffer (CFexpress + UHS-II on the Mark III vs dual UHS-II on the Mark II), autofocus in normal and low light, and the megapixel difference at 100% and 400%. My takeaway: the Mark III shoots longer bursts and has strong features, but the Mark II still looks a bit better for shadow lifting/dynamic range and is currently a touch better for animal tracking, plus the Mark III’s high-quality video modes can overheat under an hour in a 67°F room.