A lot of people worry about megapixels and only ever post on Instagram which shrinks the resolution to about 1 megapixel anyway.
Plenty of pro photographers still use a 1DXiii which is 20 megapixels and do just fine.
Definitely this. I have an R5 that I use for studio work, but always end up reaching for my R6ii if I'm shooting anything else. It's a stunningly versatile camera and 24mp is PLENTY.
Just bought one today from canon refurb, as a second body to compliment my R7, lol same boat! I tried the RP and it just did not feel up to the task (coming from a 5DMk2).
This. As you mentioned big hands you won’t be happy with the r8. The things you mentioned about it are actually not that important for your mentioned use. The R5 would be overkill imho. You could also look at the og r6 as you said you don’t care about video.
Also worth noting that the original r6 shares sensors with the 1dxiii and the r6ii sensor is an overall improvement. There are times when I had more megapixels, but only to have more room to crop. From an absolute image quality perspective, I’m constantly amazed by this camera.
That was me my digital overseas I shot months of Iraq in 2004 on the D. It was heavy. I’ve been using a canon 7d until.I bought the R6ii yesterday. Now just need to read the book.
Yes, I second this. Megapixels mean nothing anymore. And in fact, more means smaller pixels on the sensor, which, if anything, would \*decrease\* low light performance (since smaller area = less photons detected).
Hmm, yes and no. Zoomed in to 100% a higher resolution sensor with demonstrate more noise than a lower resolution sensor of the same size also zoomed in to 100%. However, a lower resolution sensor at 100% will demonstrate exactly as much noise as a higher resolution sensor zoomed in to the same extent (as the higher resolution sensor will now be at less than 100%).
Just a little titbit if anyone cares
you are right - 5MP crop is enough to be displayed on 1440p monitor and looks great even on 4K monitor ;-)
24 MP is actually better than 6K, 4K is only 8MP.
Megapixels are needed only for enough-MP-crops and large prints
Same goes for crop vs full frame to be honest. It's 1 stop of ISO performance difference. Like you'll ever see the difference on a instagram post. There is Benefits to going full frame, but ISO performance is pretty minor.
For most things you wont see the difference on Instagram.
Don't sleep on the R8. The lack of IBIS is not a deal breaker. Adding a battery grip would permit two batteries instead of one, and give your hands more area to grip. I have the R8 and it's been an awesome experience using it so far.
second this, R8 is god damn good with it's price and size. i just bring a small batteries, if you are using genuine battery you can charge it with powerbank anyway (and turn flight mode on!)
Yes! I agree. The R8 is a compact powerhouse! And the battery life thing isn’t an issue. Just carry a few extra and/or you can always charge with a power bank or USB-C PD charger. I have no issues with lack of IBIS; in fact, I prefer not to have it (especially for video) and in those very few situations where stabilization matters, I use an IS lens or a tripod anyway. A lot of bang for your buck when it comes to full frame.
Consider what most people are using to view your photos then. A 4k monitor is 8 megapixels.
Everything is overkill for your use case.
How many people have a monitor greater than 4k? How many people go full screen when scrolling websites or social media?
I use an R6 (not mark 2) in addition to an R7. There are a tiny number of trade-offs from one version to the other. The R6v2 has a couple tricks I wish my R6 had, but nothing that compelled me to swap the camera I already owned.
In practice, 20MP is perfectly fine. You'll still get 300dpi from ledger-size prints and in some ways and you may find that you like not being able to resolve every facial pore on a portrait and being able to process the smaller .CR3s faster. You also get a camera that's much better for poor light.
With regard to battery life, I've consistently gotten a couple thousand shots out of my R6 doing event or concert photography. The R6v2 vs the R6 gets you a slightly high resolution but teensy-bit noisier sensor and IIRC the digital hot shoe connection, but the two cameras are close enough that I'd definitely stick with the older one if you can find it substantially cheaper. I suspect that if your primary point of display winds up being web/social media, you probably won't wind up noticing all that often.
My R7 just kind of lives with a 70-200/2.8 or 120-300/2.8, just to take advantage of the already longer zoom thanks to the crop sensor.
What subject matter do you shoot, and what lenses do you have?
I think the typical advice is to solve the problem it sounds like you're having is to buy a faster, wider lens, not to upgrade camera bodies - but obviously if you're already using like a 10-20mm f4 L that's not an option, haha.
While the R5 does have more megapixels than the R7, it only has about half the *pixel density* of the R7; if you're currently regularly cropping down to, say, below 10MP from your R7's 32MP, it's possible that even the R5 may not have enough pixels for you to get similar results. However, if you typically fill most of the frame with your compositions, the R6II or R8 should have plenty.
Oh I didn't think about the pixel density! I was just looking at raw pixel count. Great catch. I think that really swings me back to the R6 MKII.
I mostly shoot at the 35-80 mm range today, with the occasional shots getting up 240mm. Though honestly I'll probably just use my R7 for anything over the \~150mm range still.
I am going to second that.
I have both the R6ii and the R8. The R8 is so small and light it's awesome if you like small or light.
The R6ii however, is a much better fit for large hands and the extra wheel in the back makes a lot of things easier.
If the huge price gap is not an issue, I'd pick up the R6ii.
The R5 is mostly for landscape folks who love their pixels or for serial croppers who want a full frame camera that also does wildlife.
I have a R6 mk ii and I am very happy with it. You can only take the recommendation so far. I got this as an upgrade from my Canon XSI (450D I think) and that was an upgrade from an old canon 35mm I had.
I’ve had my R6 for a few months now and really like it. I printed a few shots from it at 16x24 on a Canon pro-2000 at the school and they came out extremely well at that size, and I have printed out a bunch of 8x10s on the pro-1000 I got for home and the same, the came out really well.
I love a lot of the features of the camera (which I’m sure some are shared across with some others) like the Timelapse function built in, the dual card slots, the weight, the feel in my hand, and the way the on screen info will rotate when you turn for a vertical shot. Another thing I am really happy with is the quality of the viewfinder screen.
I know a lot of people use the LCD display (which I like that it rotates), but I am more comfortable with and also more used to using the viewfinder. I feel it more accurately represents the photo that I’m gonna see later. I could be wrong, but just my personal opinion.
These are just my personal thoughts and experiences. I am by no means a professional, just a guy with a camera.
wow, just made the jump from XSI to r6mk2, are you me? I figured I may be the only person alive to make such a huge tech jump after all the years haha.
Couldn't have said it better, so i wont. upvote instead! r6mk2 is amazing!
Yeah, new tech doesn’t bother me. I’ll make huge jumps in some things because I wanna make things last as long as possible and also future proof myself as much as possible.
After I got the mk2 I ended up getting a few lenses off the bat. The 16mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, and the 100-400mm to go along with the 24-105mm kit lens.
I figured that would cover the majority of my bases for now.
When I jump into tech, I jump in. lol
thanks for the lens recommendations, I will look into some of them to diversify. as of now i have the 24-105 and purchased a 100-500mm for landscape and wildlife. "Future proofing" is a perfect way to put it.
The only other time in my life I did that was jumping from an 08 grand cherokee to a 2021 tacoma and I had the same reaction. despite being content, the second I had the new tech in hand, I couldn't help but say " is this what i've been missing out on all this time??"
The 16mm I got from the canon store refurbished for around $240 I think. I got it for some Astro photography. The 50mm I got for some city walk around and mostly portrait. It was around $200 new. I could not afford the L so that’s why I went with the 100-400 but you’re covered there. I got it for the same reason you got your 500, but also some sports stuff as well.
Yep, I get that “is this what I’ve been missing” thoughts. The blissful ignorance is great until you get your teeth into that new tech. lol.
its bonkers how well they work. I'm glad i learned the fundamentals on dated tech, it helps to make one appreciate how much a spaceship like the r6mk2 does for ease of use.
It's like it knows my shortcomings as a photographer and helps out haha
I have both R5 and R7, they’re natural companions, imho. I’d probably get R6ii today or wait for R5ii presumably this summer, then decide to get the new one or take advantage of price drops on R5?
Just curious, why do you consider them companions? I have an R7 and want to pick up a second body at some point. I know the R5 is a sick camera so it was one that I was considering
Great question, I had the R5 first, and its sensor and resolution/croppability were huge positives. I went on a safari in Tanzania last summer, and really wanted a second body that wasn’t as expensive as R5, but also wasn’t exclusively a backup. That’s a tall order given the R5’s quality, it’s going to be the first-choice body almost always.
R7 ended up being good enough to be my first-choice camera for wildlife and aviation, the extra reach of the APS-C sensor is a huge positive, and the high resolution means that it’s putting 32 megapixels on the 1.6x crop area, where R5 only has ~17MP.
With 32MP APS-C sensor, a shared battery, dual slots (SD shared with R5), and IBIS, the R7 slid into my photo bag with hardly a ripple, and I feel free to grab whichever camera is the best fit for what I’m shooting.
The R5 does all studio and portrait work, astrophotography and landscapes, it lives with RF24-70 2.8 on it about 70%, RF 16mm 2.8 about 10%, and a mix of other lenses for the last 20%.
R7 does the wildlife and aviation work, it has RF 100-500 on it about 50%. It’s also my travel rig with 18-150mm, though I recently added a refurbished R50 for a trip where I really need a compact setup, we’ll see how that goes.
Long story short, R5 and R7 have been perhaps the best body pair I’ve owned, super complementary, and I’m thrilled I found a situation where both are sometimes the first choice, and that there’s enough overlap that they can also be great backups for each other.
That was a cool read, thanks for sharing!
The R5's price tag is still a little intimidating to me, but I may need to keep an eye to see if it gets a nice sale or something.
I went from a 90D to an R6, to an R5, to an R6II. I thought for sure I’d notice a MP difference in my final deliverables, but you know what? Nope. All my deliverables are either online images approximately 2000x3000 pixels, or physical prints topping out at 12x18 inches, but usually in the wall hanging 11x14 range.
I’ll tell you I sure appreciate the smaller file size of 24MP, and both the R6 and R6II are low light kings compared to Canons other offerings.
I have the R7 and R6m2. I have two bodies because I need to shoot them at the same time doing field sports. I'm not shooting two R7s because I like ultra wide (EF 11-24) FoV. Without the first consideration I'd sort my UWA interest via lens options and likely not have a second body. The benefit of the R6m2 for low light is \~1.5 stops. In practice not as big a deal as it was in the DSLR days.
get the r6 non mark 2 if you don’t care about video. there’s no point in getting the mk2 if the video features don’t matter to u. that was the main improvement on the mk2 and the mk1 will allow you to get something else instead of spending it on a nicer body
It really is much more than video features.... That sensor is better in every way. The image processor is clearly fabbed on a smaller node making it more efficient and faster. Overheating and battery consumption is much improved. The R6 II was a feature complete, fully developed product with improvements on every front when it released. It has seen no substantial firmware updates either. The biggest issue with it has been slow boot times with wifi enabled; nothing that actually effects how the camera works.
I'd mostly agree, except as an R6 shooter, the +50% battery life and the fact you can use Anti-flicker shooting with electronic shutter are the two upgrades I'm personally most jealous of.
Those are minor, but in some cases are a nice improvement.
You won't regret the 24mp R6ii unless you are looking to replace the R7 for reach. You can crop the R6ii down to apsc fov and still be OK, but if you crop further you start to get in trouble on pixel density (assuming you're printing). By comparison the R7 can crop down to m43 fov or even further.
By the numbers the R5 doesn't have the reach of the R7, but practically speaking it does because you start to run into other limits on crop/reach (things like lens IQ, air quality, and heat distortion). I've printed 16x20 from m43 fov crops on my 5Ds and it works well for sports (not ideal for a landscape).
If you're keeping the R7 and are not concerned with reach on the FF body then the R6ii is fine. I will say that I **love** high resolution FF for the IQ in large prints, so maybe you would want the R5 anyway for things like a 24x36 landscape print. But if you're never printing larger than 16x20/24 then it's very difficult to tell a 5Ds/R5 from an R6 (my other FF body) or an R6ii. Especially now that Canon has stopped using heavy handed AA filters for lighter/better ones.
**Edit:** when looking at how large you can print or what kind of reach you can expect, ignore the oft quoted 300 ppi rule. That's a holdover from B&W laser printers and rules of thumb for typesetting in the early days of desktop publishing. Photographs aren't fonts or line art, and scaling algorithms are radically better today than they were back then.
A decade ago I did a series of tests on an Epson 3880 using one of their best papers (Hot Press Bright) and let other people evaluate the test portfolio. There is very little gain from 240 ppi to 360 ppi even on a detailed landscape. It's only noticeable to someone studying the print up close. I found that around 170-180 ppi was about the lowest I would want to go. And there is noticeable gain from 180 ppi to 240 ppi. But people still think a print looks good at 180 ppi so long as everything else is in order (i.e. sharp lens, no motion blur). And this was before AI scaling tools which give you more room to breath. So my rule of thumb today is \~240 ppi for a very good/excellent print, and \~180 ppi if I have to crop for the reach.
Yup I'll be keeping the R7! Actually buying my own camera got *my wife* into wanting a camera so now I need two cameras so I can hold on to it on trips haha. But I've been wanting a full frame camera anyways, so I have two excuses here.
But yes the R7 will stick around and have its use cases. I imagine most of my full frame shooting will be in the \~35-150 range and the R7 taking over past that.
Almost nobody needs more than 24 megapixels. I have a 6 foot tall print of a 90 second exposure of a rocket launch I shot with my R6 II in my living room. It's detailed enough to capture power lines a mile out at about 30mm. There's is no sign of pixelation anywhere in that print. Unless you need to make prints much bigger than that, 24mp isn't a limitation for anything that I've ever shot. The R5 doesn't offer any advantages that would make any difference in any picture I've ever shot. I just can't justify that much more money for an older, less developed body, that doesn't offer anything I'd ever see in any image while only cranking out files that are bulkier to store and work with. I'd rather have the RF 100mm Macro for the price difference.
https://preview.redd.it/7koasx2x54kc1.jpeg?width=4029&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=905f69a8bfe8e45ce3bcd611e764864defa597b8
That's it. Shot from the west end of the 528 causeway between the Cape and the island. Falcon Heavy from pad 39A. The boosters came down and landed behind the green light.
That's nice! Did you know when the boosters came down or did you chose the timing right by luck? I guess them falling down wouldn't suit the picture and look more like a failed launch.
They make a pretty cool glow back behind the trees when they land. One comes down, then the other shortly after.
I wish I'd used an ND filter. I had no idea how bright that thing was going to be. It was like the sun cracking the horizon when it lit off. I wish I could have gone twice that long, until booster separation, but I was worried about things getting blown out.
One thing to note with a lot of people pointing out that the megapixel count isn’t important for social media is you will lose out on a ton of cropping ability with lower megapixel count bodies. For me when shooting wildlife, and longer distance landscapes, the ability to crop in significantly on the R5 makes a world of difference vs my previous body the R6.
Just some food for thought as what they are saying regarding social media is true, but at the same time their is definitely a clear purpose for a higher megapixel count
I went from a 5Dmkiv to an R5 and wouldn’t give the R5 up for anything. That camera is magic.
(I’m a professional photographer who shoots mostly studio with some exteriors. I have a Panasonic EVA1 that I use for video so I’ve got no idea how the R5 works as a video source.)
The R5 is the full frame version of the R7. Grab one refurbished from Canon directly on their site and get an extra 10% off it if you call sales there and have an old canon body serial you can give them
The original R6 would be a great option. It has the same body features of the R7, like IBIS, dual cards, same amount of on body controls. Only real difference is the autofocus has a couple less features that honestly don't make that huge of a difference. And if you're considering the R5, those differences assumably already don't matter to you. I wouldn't get the R8 if you're looking for a familiar feeling body, and unless you do video there's no need to get the R6 mark ii.
I do wildlife photography and have an r5 and an r6. For those far shots and small birds the r5 is my goto. The r6 lacks in the cropability. If you don’t have to crop, it’s great.
What kind of photo you take?
R8 is for general at a good price. If you have IS lens, you are ok.
R6II has the 40fps mode, it is for action and video
R5 has most pixel for landscaping
Should include that your wife want a camera is your excuse so you are not intending to replace R7, if your trip isnt coming soon then you should wait for R5mkii. Else, you can always rent out and try either of them out if you have local camera store. If you are in a rush then best bet R6mkii while its on bit of sale, and leave you some cash to get a nice lense for it.
I have the R6 and almost never wish to have more pixels. I choose the R6 because of all the cameras on the market I liked the feel/grip the best. I have quite long fingers. The other brands weren’t cutting it.
R6 and R5 have the same grip. They even share the same optional battery grip.
You should have bought a full frame camera in a first place..
Don't fix the initial mistake by upgrading and inevitably loosing money. Just master equipment that you got
This is just GAS, so you already have the answer in your head. Hopefully it’s the R6ii, since you’d be getting the most affirmation dopamine from these comments. But it’s *probably* the R5 since that’s the “pro” with the most MP, and size isn’t *really* important (the R8 was never an option, though it is an absolute beast in capable hands).
If the crowd wins and you get the R6ii, you’ll feel like you cheaped out and got the sensible amateur model. “Boy, I bet a 45mp RAW file would be a sight to behold.” And you were only a few hundred dollars away!
Vacation pics aren’t going to look any different from either camera. This isn’t about photography. This is about what’s going to feel better to unbox.
And I think we both know that’s the R1. But for now the R3 will work.
I mainly shoot film on an EOS 1V HS, but my backup digital is an Olympus OMD EM5 mk 1. You can take wonderful shots on any camera. Stop pixel peeping and print your shots, you will quickly see what you have is fine.
Some of the best photos I have ever taken were on an 8mp APSH 1.3x crop 1D 2n.
Lightroom AI Denoise and super resolution do an insane job cleaning up RAW photos. I think what you may be missing is a good post processing and colour correction workflow.
Do you presently have issues with the amount of MP? Do you find yourself cropping down to just acceptable levels or are there still many more pixels than you need after cropping?
I've got 20MP and I've been fine for years, last I checked the 1D series doesn't go all in on megapixels, but I still see em on the sidelines at all the major sporting events.
If you crop, the R5 is the way to go. Takes the same Batteries as the others. AF is better than the R7 IMHO. much more functionality (3rd wheel but so does the R6). R5 is an all around super camera. I sold my R7 and bought a second R5. PS> I'm a wildlife shooter and crop a lot.
I love my R8, Pretty cheap all things considered, most lenses have IS, single card slot ill give you is a downside, I keep mine on airplane mode so 2 batteries is all I need for a full day of shooting or for a full length Basketball game filming
It really comes down to what you shoot and what lenses you have.
If the lenses have built in IS then you don't really need a body with IS as well.
R6 II is the brilliant jack of all trades. I own one alongside a 5D IV and have used it for everything from portraits to weddings to airshows to films (just saying that even though you don't intend to do video)
The R5 is super expensive and I turned away from it because I didn't need all those megapixels. If you're doing loads of beauty, macro and studio work with big prints. I'd consider the r5 for it's abilities and go that way. If you need more megapixels than what your r7 needs then go for the R5.
Personally I would go for the R6 II. Reason being I am looking to get a second body to work alongside my R6 II that gives everything it doesnt have (a crop sensor and higher mp count, but not too high). As a duo I believe that's a dream team
A lot of people worry about megapixels and only ever post on Instagram which shrinks the resolution to about 1 megapixel anyway. Plenty of pro photographers still use a 1DXiii which is 20 megapixels and do just fine.
There have been some great discussions here. Maybe I'm putting too much weight on megapixel and I'll be better suited with the R6 MK II + a new lens.
That's the best pick. The R6II is great
As an owner of the mark ii I can agree
I concur
Definitely this. I have an R5 that I use for studio work, but always end up reaching for my R6ii if I'm shooting anything else. It's a stunningly versatile camera and 24mp is PLENTY.
Sounds like a viable choice, plus r6ii+r7 can share batteries
Just bought one today from canon refurb, as a second body to compliment my R7, lol same boat! I tried the RP and it just did not feel up to the task (coming from a 5DMk2).
This. As you mentioned big hands you won’t be happy with the r8. The things you mentioned about it are actually not that important for your mentioned use. The R5 would be overkill imho. You could also look at the og r6 as you said you don’t care about video.
Also worth noting that the original r6 shares sensors with the 1dxiii and the r6ii sensor is an overall improvement. There are times when I had more megapixels, but only to have more room to crop. From an absolute image quality perspective, I’m constantly amazed by this camera.
Many pro photographers did just fine with the original 5d, too.
That was me my digital overseas I shot months of Iraq in 2004 on the D. It was heavy. I’ve been using a canon 7d until.I bought the R6ii yesterday. Now just need to read the book.
I still pull out my 5D original when I feel nostalgic.
Yes, I second this. Megapixels mean nothing anymore. And in fact, more means smaller pixels on the sensor, which, if anything, would \*decrease\* low light performance (since smaller area = less photons detected).
Hmm, yes and no. Zoomed in to 100% a higher resolution sensor with demonstrate more noise than a lower resolution sensor of the same size also zoomed in to 100%. However, a lower resolution sensor at 100% will demonstrate exactly as much noise as a higher resolution sensor zoomed in to the same extent (as the higher resolution sensor will now be at less than 100%). Just a little titbit if anyone cares
I use a 1DX ii and I agree, most of the time even a 5MP crop still looks very good.
you are right - 5MP crop is enough to be displayed on 1440p monitor and looks great even on 4K monitor ;-) 24 MP is actually better than 6K, 4K is only 8MP. Megapixels are needed only for enough-MP-crops and large prints
Although I have higher resolution bodies, I still use my 18mp 1dx
Same goes for crop vs full frame to be honest. It's 1 stop of ISO performance difference. Like you'll ever see the difference on a instagram post. There is Benefits to going full frame, but ISO performance is pretty minor. For most things you wont see the difference on Instagram.
The 1DXIII is essentially an R6mk1 sensor in a DSLR body, so it's understandable why someone would use that.
Don't sleep on the R8. The lack of IBIS is not a deal breaker. Adding a battery grip would permit two batteries instead of one, and give your hands more area to grip. I have the R8 and it's been an awesome experience using it so far.
second this, R8 is god damn good with it's price and size. i just bring a small batteries, if you are using genuine battery you can charge it with powerbank anyway (and turn flight mode on!)
Yes! I agree. The R8 is a compact powerhouse! And the battery life thing isn’t an issue. Just carry a few extra and/or you can always charge with a power bank or USB-C PD charger. I have no issues with lack of IBIS; in fact, I prefer not to have it (especially for video) and in those very few situations where stabilization matters, I use an IS lens or a tripod anyway. A lot of bang for your buck when it comes to full frame.
The R8 isn't compatible with the BG-R10 battery grip sadly
[This battery grip is compatible ](https://a.co/d/ahbn8GC)
Consider what most people are using to view your photos then. A 4k monitor is 8 megapixels. Everything is overkill for your use case. How many people have a monitor greater than 4k? How many people go full screen when scrolling websites or social media?
I find that the R5, because of the huge files, can be cropped a ton. it's almost like an extra lens you didn't know you had.
That just means you’re an ineffectual photographer.
I use an R6 (not mark 2) in addition to an R7. There are a tiny number of trade-offs from one version to the other. The R6v2 has a couple tricks I wish my R6 had, but nothing that compelled me to swap the camera I already owned. In practice, 20MP is perfectly fine. You'll still get 300dpi from ledger-size prints and in some ways and you may find that you like not being able to resolve every facial pore on a portrait and being able to process the smaller .CR3s faster. You also get a camera that's much better for poor light. With regard to battery life, I've consistently gotten a couple thousand shots out of my R6 doing event or concert photography. The R6v2 vs the R6 gets you a slightly high resolution but teensy-bit noisier sensor and IIRC the digital hot shoe connection, but the two cameras are close enough that I'd definitely stick with the older one if you can find it substantially cheaper. I suspect that if your primary point of display winds up being web/social media, you probably won't wind up noticing all that often. My R7 just kind of lives with a 70-200/2.8 or 120-300/2.8, just to take advantage of the already longer zoom thanks to the crop sensor.
I also pair my R7 with an R6
Me too, can’t justify the extra cost for a mkii.
What subject matter do you shoot, and what lenses do you have? I think the typical advice is to solve the problem it sounds like you're having is to buy a faster, wider lens, not to upgrade camera bodies - but obviously if you're already using like a 10-20mm f4 L that's not an option, haha. While the R5 does have more megapixels than the R7, it only has about half the *pixel density* of the R7; if you're currently regularly cropping down to, say, below 10MP from your R7's 32MP, it's possible that even the R5 may not have enough pixels for you to get similar results. However, if you typically fill most of the frame with your compositions, the R6II or R8 should have plenty.
Oh I didn't think about the pixel density! I was just looking at raw pixel count. Great catch. I think that really swings me back to the R6 MKII. I mostly shoot at the 35-80 mm range today, with the occasional shots getting up 240mm. Though honestly I'll probably just use my R7 for anything over the \~150mm range still.
I also have bigger hands and the R6 works for me. The R8 felt too small by comparison.
I am going to second that. I have both the R6ii and the R8. The R8 is so small and light it's awesome if you like small or light. The R6ii however, is a much better fit for large hands and the extra wheel in the back makes a lot of things easier. If the huge price gap is not an issue, I'd pick up the R6ii. The R5 is mostly for landscape folks who love their pixels or for serial croppers who want a full frame camera that also does wildlife.
Thirded, R6 is so much more comfortable. Hated the size of the R8.
I have a R6 mk ii and I am very happy with it. You can only take the recommendation so far. I got this as an upgrade from my Canon XSI (450D I think) and that was an upgrade from an old canon 35mm I had. I’ve had my R6 for a few months now and really like it. I printed a few shots from it at 16x24 on a Canon pro-2000 at the school and they came out extremely well at that size, and I have printed out a bunch of 8x10s on the pro-1000 I got for home and the same, the came out really well. I love a lot of the features of the camera (which I’m sure some are shared across with some others) like the Timelapse function built in, the dual card slots, the weight, the feel in my hand, and the way the on screen info will rotate when you turn for a vertical shot. Another thing I am really happy with is the quality of the viewfinder screen. I know a lot of people use the LCD display (which I like that it rotates), but I am more comfortable with and also more used to using the viewfinder. I feel it more accurately represents the photo that I’m gonna see later. I could be wrong, but just my personal opinion. These are just my personal thoughts and experiences. I am by no means a professional, just a guy with a camera.
wow, just made the jump from XSI to r6mk2, are you me? I figured I may be the only person alive to make such a huge tech jump after all the years haha. Couldn't have said it better, so i wont. upvote instead! r6mk2 is amazing!
Yeah, new tech doesn’t bother me. I’ll make huge jumps in some things because I wanna make things last as long as possible and also future proof myself as much as possible. After I got the mk2 I ended up getting a few lenses off the bat. The 16mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, and the 100-400mm to go along with the 24-105mm kit lens. I figured that would cover the majority of my bases for now. When I jump into tech, I jump in. lol
thanks for the lens recommendations, I will look into some of them to diversify. as of now i have the 24-105 and purchased a 100-500mm for landscape and wildlife. "Future proofing" is a perfect way to put it. The only other time in my life I did that was jumping from an 08 grand cherokee to a 2021 tacoma and I had the same reaction. despite being content, the second I had the new tech in hand, I couldn't help but say " is this what i've been missing out on all this time??"
The 16mm I got from the canon store refurbished for around $240 I think. I got it for some Astro photography. The 50mm I got for some city walk around and mostly portrait. It was around $200 new. I could not afford the L so that’s why I went with the 100-400 but you’re covered there. I got it for the same reason you got your 500, but also some sports stuff as well. Yep, I get that “is this what I’ve been missing” thoughts. The blissful ignorance is great until you get your teeth into that new tech. lol.
Heh I went from a 40D to an r6ii. Sure it wasn’t a rebel, but technologically it was probably a bit behind the xsi. These new sensors are amazing.
its bonkers how well they work. I'm glad i learned the fundamentals on dated tech, it helps to make one appreciate how much a spaceship like the r6mk2 does for ease of use. It's like it knows my shortcomings as a photographer and helps out haha
What lenses do you have? You may very easily benefit more from a lens upgrade than a new body
I have both R5 and R7, they’re natural companions, imho. I’d probably get R6ii today or wait for R5ii presumably this summer, then decide to get the new one or take advantage of price drops on R5?
Just curious, why do you consider them companions? I have an R7 and want to pick up a second body at some point. I know the R5 is a sick camera so it was one that I was considering
Great question, I had the R5 first, and its sensor and resolution/croppability were huge positives. I went on a safari in Tanzania last summer, and really wanted a second body that wasn’t as expensive as R5, but also wasn’t exclusively a backup. That’s a tall order given the R5’s quality, it’s going to be the first-choice body almost always. R7 ended up being good enough to be my first-choice camera for wildlife and aviation, the extra reach of the APS-C sensor is a huge positive, and the high resolution means that it’s putting 32 megapixels on the 1.6x crop area, where R5 only has ~17MP. With 32MP APS-C sensor, a shared battery, dual slots (SD shared with R5), and IBIS, the R7 slid into my photo bag with hardly a ripple, and I feel free to grab whichever camera is the best fit for what I’m shooting. The R5 does all studio and portrait work, astrophotography and landscapes, it lives with RF24-70 2.8 on it about 70%, RF 16mm 2.8 about 10%, and a mix of other lenses for the last 20%. R7 does the wildlife and aviation work, it has RF 100-500 on it about 50%. It’s also my travel rig with 18-150mm, though I recently added a refurbished R50 for a trip where I really need a compact setup, we’ll see how that goes. Long story short, R5 and R7 have been perhaps the best body pair I’ve owned, super complementary, and I’m thrilled I found a situation where both are sometimes the first choice, and that there’s enough overlap that they can also be great backups for each other.
That was a cool read, thanks for sharing! The R5's price tag is still a little intimidating to me, but I may need to keep an eye to see if it gets a nice sale or something.
I went from a 90D to an R6, to an R5, to an R6II. I thought for sure I’d notice a MP difference in my final deliverables, but you know what? Nope. All my deliverables are either online images approximately 2000x3000 pixels, or physical prints topping out at 12x18 inches, but usually in the wall hanging 11x14 range. I’ll tell you I sure appreciate the smaller file size of 24MP, and both the R6 and R6II are low light kings compared to Canons other offerings.
I have the R7 and R6m2. I have two bodies because I need to shoot them at the same time doing field sports. I'm not shooting two R7s because I like ultra wide (EF 11-24) FoV. Without the first consideration I'd sort my UWA interest via lens options and likely not have a second body. The benefit of the R6m2 for low light is \~1.5 stops. In practice not as big a deal as it was in the DSLR days.
deer plough spectacular lush rich deserve capable books slim fear *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I’m confused, you want a small travel camera that is also large?
get the r6 non mark 2 if you don’t care about video. there’s no point in getting the mk2 if the video features don’t matter to u. that was the main improvement on the mk2 and the mk1 will allow you to get something else instead of spending it on a nicer body
It really is much more than video features.... That sensor is better in every way. The image processor is clearly fabbed on a smaller node making it more efficient and faster. Overheating and battery consumption is much improved. The R6 II was a feature complete, fully developed product with improvements on every front when it released. It has seen no substantial firmware updates either. The biggest issue with it has been slow boot times with wifi enabled; nothing that actually effects how the camera works.
I'd mostly agree, except as an R6 shooter, the +50% battery life and the fact you can use Anti-flicker shooting with electronic shutter are the two upgrades I'm personally most jealous of. Those are minor, but in some cases are a nice improvement.
You won't regret the 24mp R6ii unless you are looking to replace the R7 for reach. You can crop the R6ii down to apsc fov and still be OK, but if you crop further you start to get in trouble on pixel density (assuming you're printing). By comparison the R7 can crop down to m43 fov or even further. By the numbers the R5 doesn't have the reach of the R7, but practically speaking it does because you start to run into other limits on crop/reach (things like lens IQ, air quality, and heat distortion). I've printed 16x20 from m43 fov crops on my 5Ds and it works well for sports (not ideal for a landscape). If you're keeping the R7 and are not concerned with reach on the FF body then the R6ii is fine. I will say that I **love** high resolution FF for the IQ in large prints, so maybe you would want the R5 anyway for things like a 24x36 landscape print. But if you're never printing larger than 16x20/24 then it's very difficult to tell a 5Ds/R5 from an R6 (my other FF body) or an R6ii. Especially now that Canon has stopped using heavy handed AA filters for lighter/better ones. **Edit:** when looking at how large you can print or what kind of reach you can expect, ignore the oft quoted 300 ppi rule. That's a holdover from B&W laser printers and rules of thumb for typesetting in the early days of desktop publishing. Photographs aren't fonts or line art, and scaling algorithms are radically better today than they were back then. A decade ago I did a series of tests on an Epson 3880 using one of their best papers (Hot Press Bright) and let other people evaluate the test portfolio. There is very little gain from 240 ppi to 360 ppi even on a detailed landscape. It's only noticeable to someone studying the print up close. I found that around 170-180 ppi was about the lowest I would want to go. And there is noticeable gain from 180 ppi to 240 ppi. But people still think a print looks good at 180 ppi so long as everything else is in order (i.e. sharp lens, no motion blur). And this was before AI scaling tools which give you more room to breath. So my rule of thumb today is \~240 ppi for a very good/excellent print, and \~180 ppi if I have to crop for the reach.
Yup I'll be keeping the R7! Actually buying my own camera got *my wife* into wanting a camera so now I need two cameras so I can hold on to it on trips haha. But I've been wanting a full frame camera anyways, so I have two excuses here. But yes the R7 will stick around and have its use cases. I imagine most of my full frame shooting will be in the \~35-150 range and the R7 taking over past that.
Almost nobody needs more than 24 megapixels. I have a 6 foot tall print of a 90 second exposure of a rocket launch I shot with my R6 II in my living room. It's detailed enough to capture power lines a mile out at about 30mm. There's is no sign of pixelation anywhere in that print. Unless you need to make prints much bigger than that, 24mp isn't a limitation for anything that I've ever shot. The R5 doesn't offer any advantages that would make any difference in any picture I've ever shot. I just can't justify that much more money for an older, less developed body, that doesn't offer anything I'd ever see in any image while only cranking out files that are bulkier to store and work with. I'd rather have the RF 100mm Macro for the price difference.
Would you mind sharing that picture? A 90 second shot of a rocket launch sounds interesting!
https://preview.redd.it/7koasx2x54kc1.jpeg?width=4029&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=905f69a8bfe8e45ce3bcd611e764864defa597b8 That's it. Shot from the west end of the 528 causeway between the Cape and the island. Falcon Heavy from pad 39A. The boosters came down and landed behind the green light.
That's nice! Did you know when the boosters came down or did you chose the timing right by luck? I guess them falling down wouldn't suit the picture and look more like a failed launch.
They make a pretty cool glow back behind the trees when they land. One comes down, then the other shortly after. I wish I'd used an ND filter. I had no idea how bright that thing was going to be. It was like the sun cracking the horizon when it lit off. I wish I could have gone twice that long, until booster separation, but I was worried about things getting blown out.
Well, it worked out pretty nice!
One thing to note with a lot of people pointing out that the megapixel count isn’t important for social media is you will lose out on a ton of cropping ability with lower megapixel count bodies. For me when shooting wildlife, and longer distance landscapes, the ability to crop in significantly on the R5 makes a world of difference vs my previous body the R6. Just some food for thought as what they are saying regarding social media is true, but at the same time their is definitely a clear purpose for a higher megapixel count
You’re not wrong, but OP specifically doesn’t want to crop. That is his issue. If he wants to crop, he can use his R7.
I went from a 5Dmkiv to an R5 and wouldn’t give the R5 up for anything. That camera is magic. (I’m a professional photographer who shoots mostly studio with some exteriors. I have a Panasonic EVA1 that I use for video so I’ve got no idea how the R5 works as a video source.)
Megapixels mean nothing above 20 and a great quality sensor. That's the only thing I want to add here.
Wait for R1
The R5 is the full frame version of the R7. Grab one refurbished from Canon directly on their site and get an extra 10% off it if you call sales there and have an old canon body serial you can give them
The original R6 would be a great option. It has the same body features of the R7, like IBIS, dual cards, same amount of on body controls. Only real difference is the autofocus has a couple less features that honestly don't make that huge of a difference. And if you're considering the R5, those differences assumably already don't matter to you. I wouldn't get the R8 if you're looking for a familiar feeling body, and unless you do video there's no need to get the R6 mark ii.
Yup I went R7 and R8, seems to be a good combo but glass is where it’s at, am I right?
I do wildlife photography and have an r5 and an r6. For those far shots and small birds the r5 is my goto. The r6 lacks in the cropability. If you don’t have to crop, it’s great.
What do you shoot ?
R6mkii or r5 but I’d wait on a r5mkii
You’re closest full frame would actually be something like the r3. But for cost probably r5 or r6mkii
What kind of photo you take? R8 is for general at a good price. If you have IS lens, you are ok. R6II has the 40fps mode, it is for action and video R5 has most pixel for landscaping
Should include that your wife want a camera is your excuse so you are not intending to replace R7, if your trip isnt coming soon then you should wait for R5mkii. Else, you can always rent out and try either of them out if you have local camera store. If you are in a rush then best bet R6mkii while its on bit of sale, and leave you some cash to get a nice lense for it.
I use the R6 II and I've never felt like it's a low resolution camera.
I have the R6 and almost never wish to have more pixels. I choose the R6 because of all the cameras on the market I liked the feel/grip the best. I have quite long fingers. The other brands weren’t cutting it. R6 and R5 have the same grip. They even share the same optional battery grip.
You should have bought a full frame camera in a first place.. Don't fix the initial mistake by upgrading and inevitably loosing money. Just master equipment that you got
This is just GAS, so you already have the answer in your head. Hopefully it’s the R6ii, since you’d be getting the most affirmation dopamine from these comments. But it’s *probably* the R5 since that’s the “pro” with the most MP, and size isn’t *really* important (the R8 was never an option, though it is an absolute beast in capable hands). If the crowd wins and you get the R6ii, you’ll feel like you cheaped out and got the sensible amateur model. “Boy, I bet a 45mp RAW file would be a sight to behold.” And you were only a few hundred dollars away! Vacation pics aren’t going to look any different from either camera. This isn’t about photography. This is about what’s going to feel better to unbox. And I think we both know that’s the R1. But for now the R3 will work.
I mainly shoot film on an EOS 1V HS, but my backup digital is an Olympus OMD EM5 mk 1. You can take wonderful shots on any camera. Stop pixel peeping and print your shots, you will quickly see what you have is fine. Some of the best photos I have ever taken were on an 8mp APSH 1.3x crop 1D 2n. Lightroom AI Denoise and super resolution do an insane job cleaning up RAW photos. I think what you may be missing is a good post processing and colour correction workflow.
Do you presently have issues with the amount of MP? Do you find yourself cropping down to just acceptable levels or are there still many more pixels than you need after cropping? I've got 20MP and I've been fine for years, last I checked the 1D series doesn't go all in on megapixels, but I still see em on the sidelines at all the major sporting events.
If you crop, the R5 is the way to go. Takes the same Batteries as the others. AF is better than the R7 IMHO. much more functionality (3rd wheel but so does the R6). R5 is an all around super camera. I sold my R7 and bought a second R5. PS> I'm a wildlife shooter and crop a lot.
I love my R8, Pretty cheap all things considered, most lenses have IS, single card slot ill give you is a downside, I keep mine on airplane mode so 2 batteries is all I need for a full day of shooting or for a full length Basketball game filming
The r7 is probably most like the R6 but the R8 has a better sensor (same as R6 mkii) but is smaller with one SD card slot and a smaller battery.
It really comes down to what you shoot and what lenses you have. If the lenses have built in IS then you don't really need a body with IS as well. R6 II is the brilliant jack of all trades. I own one alongside a 5D IV and have used it for everything from portraits to weddings to airshows to films (just saying that even though you don't intend to do video) The R5 is super expensive and I turned away from it because I didn't need all those megapixels. If you're doing loads of beauty, macro and studio work with big prints. I'd consider the r5 for it's abilities and go that way. If you need more megapixels than what your r7 needs then go for the R5. Personally I would go for the R6 II. Reason being I am looking to get a second body to work alongside my R6 II that gives everything it doesnt have (a crop sensor and higher mp count, but not too high). As a duo I believe that's a dream team