6D MKII v EOS R

Sports Shooter said:

Dr_Jon said:

Sports Shooter said:

Hi all,

I am about to pull the trigger on a 6D MKII. Prices have dropped like bricks since the EOS R was announced. I can get a 6D MKII for 989 sterling and as I pay in EUR it makes it very very cheap option to enter into FF.

Reading the specs of the EOS R particularly the camera's weight it's only 160gr lighter v the 6D MKII. The EF/RF lenses are bulky anyway so in terms of weight/size there is very little difference.

I cannot justify the price difference v spec/weight/size, over 1,000 Pounds. Would you?

I am sure the EOS R will evolve and perhaps in 3-4 years it will be a better option at least for me.

Click to expand...

If you are considering it I'd be inclined to wait until you can play with both in a shop (next month) and see if one feels particularly better than the other to you.

Click to expand...

You know , for the price difference and the IQ when printing up to A3+ the handling wouldn’t bother me too much . Add a 70-200/2.8 MKII and size / weight /handling becomes irrelevant

i am used to carry a 400/2.8 and 1d bodies around the pitch. I think that the 6d mkii is excellent value for money now if like me u have lots of Canon lenses .

I am keen to take the 85/1.8 and 40/2.8 out and take a few portraits

i ordered the camera yesterday

Click to expand...

I was more thinking or ergonomics, but that doesn't matter now and I hope you'll be very happy with your new camera and get some great shots!

Sports Shooter said:

MarshallG said:

EOS R is only 3fps. Really not a sports photographer’s camera. The 6D II isn’t a lot better, but it’s better.

The 7D2... now THATS a sport photographer camera!

Click to expand...

I have the 1D MKIV and MKIII for sports and I bought the 6D MKII for travel, portraits, landscapes etc. But I'll have a go at a rugby/soccer match and see how it performs. Not an important one though..

Click to expand...

I'm amazed every time I use my 1Dx2 how sharp and clear it is. I always put off going to a 1D because of the price, but didn't more on incremental upgrade than if I'd just bought one way back when. It's a beast!

Sports Shooter said:

Hi all,

I am about to pull the trigger on a 6D MKII. Prices have dropped like bricks since the EOS R was announced. I can get a 6D MKII for 989 sterling and as I pay in EUR it makes it very very cheap option to enter into FF.

Reading the specs of the EOS R particularly the camera's weight it's only 160gr lighter v the 6D MKII. The EF/RF lenses are bulky anyway so in terms of weight/size there is very little difference.

I cannot justify the price difference v spec/weight/size, over 1,000 Pounds. Would you?

I am sure the EOS R will evolve and perhaps in 3-4 years it will be a better option at least for me.

Click to expand...

My 5DII is getting pretty old, so I've been evaluating full frame cameras.

What the R gives you that the 6DII doesn't:

Four more megapixels, 30 vs 26.

Higher shutter speed, 1/8000th vs 1/4000th. I don't investigate camera innards too much, but my 5DII has over 100,000 activations. Most shutters that max out at 1/4000th are on entry level cameras. No clue what that means for shutter longevity, or if you use your camera enough to make it an issue.

Earphone jack: Big deal for me, cause I do interviews on video. Particularly when using XLR connections during press conferences, you'd better have a way to monitor the audio input. If you don't do video, no biggie, also no biggie if you record audio separately.

Larger autofocus area.

Compatibility with both EF and RF lenses.

Maximum flash synch of 1/200 vs 1/160.

Eye and face autofocus.

There are several features on the R that the reviewers haven't covered in depth, because they're really new, and they don't quite know what to do with them. The adaptable focus ring, modifications of the menu, and the mount taking advantage of soon to be released features are a thing.

So, the R is definitely a step up, but are the differences ones that make enough of a difference for the price? Your call.

BTW, I have a 7DII also, and shoot a lot of sports. I get the premise of "this camera isn't a sports camera" with autofocus speed and frames per second being the defining characteristics, but I made a lot of money with the 5DII shooting sports, and still prefer it over the 7DII for inside stuff like basketball and volleyball. I've gotten complaints about noise from some of my clients on the 7DII at higher iso settings. The 5DII still does a better job in low light (FF vs crop) and I usually use center point autofocus, so the 5DII performs well for that. You have to plan your shots a little better with lower frame rates, but I'd have no problem taking the 6DII or probably the R on a sports shoot.

Stephen Cook said:

Sports Shooter said:

Hi all,

I am about to pull the trigger on a 6D MKII. Prices have dropped like bricks since the EOS R was announced. I can get a 6D MKII for 989 sterling and as I pay in EUR it makes it very very cheap option to enter into FF.

Reading the specs of the EOS R particularly the camera's weight it's only 160gr lighter v the 6D MKII. The EF/RF lenses are bulky anyway so in terms of weight/size there is very little difference.

I cannot justify the price difference v spec/weight/size, over 1,000 Pounds. Would you?

I am sure the EOS R will evolve and perhaps in 3-4 years it will be a better option at least for me.

Click to expand...

My 5DII is getting pretty old, so I've been evaluating full frame cameras.

What the R gives you that the 6DII doesn't:

Four more megapixels, 30 vs 26.

Click to expand...

Not a big deal for me for prints up to A3+

Stephen Cook said:

Higher shutter speed, 1/8000th vs 1/4000th. I don't investigate camera innards too much, but my 5DII has over 100,000 activations. Most shutters that max out at 1/4000th are on entry level cameras. No clue what that means for shutter longevity, or if you use your camera enough to make it an issue.

Click to expand...

Even shooting sports the max I use is 1/2000 or 1/2500 on sunny days.

Stephen Cook said:

Earphone jack: Big deal for me, cause I do interviews on video. Particularly when using XLR connections during press conferences, you'd better have a way to monitor the audio input. If you don't do video, no biggie, also no biggie if you record audio separately.

Click to expand...

Don't do videos

Stephen Cook said:

Larger autofocus area.

Click to expand...

I agree to that but in practice for landscapes, travel, portrait is it worth the extra 1,000 pounds??? I can't tell

Stephen Cook said:

Compatibility with both EF and RF lenses.

Click to expand...

Yes, but would I buy an RF 24-105 to replace my EF 24-105? Not really

Stephen Cook said:

Maximum flash synch of 1/200 vs 1/160.

Click to expand...

HS flash for fill in will sufficie

Stephen Cook said:

Eye and face autofocus.

Click to expand...

yes could be handy

Stephen Cook said:

There are several features on the R that the reviewers haven't covered in depth, because they're really new, and they don't quite know what to do with them. The adaptable focus ring, modifications of the menu, and the mount taking advantage of soon to be released features are a thing.

So, the R is definitely a step up, but are the differences ones that make enough of a difference for the price? Your call.

Click to expand...

I made the call for the 6d MKII and waiting for the postman

Stephen Cook said:

BTW, I have a 7DII also, and shoot a lot of sports. I get the premise of "this camera isn't a sports camera" with autofocus speed and frames per second being the defining characteristics, but I made a lot of money with the 5DII shooting sports, and still prefer it over the 7DII for inside stuff like basketball and volleyball. I've gotten complaints about noise from some of my clients on the 7DII at higher iso settings. The 5DII still does a better job in low light (FF vs crop) and I usually use center point autofocus, so the 5DII performs well for that. You have to plan your shots a little better with lower frame rates, but I'd have no problem taking the 6DII or probably the R on a sports shoot.

Click to expand...

Me too.. but I have the 7D and noise is awful. Even my 1D MKIII has noise limitation and that where I will try the 6D MKII and see how it behaves for night time sports. My next purchase will be the 1Dx MKII when I go to the US ( Much cheaper there) and I am drooling over the 400/2.8 MKIII

MarshallG said:

EOS R is only 3fps. Really not a sports photographer’s camera. The 6D II isn’t a lot better, but it’s better.

The 7D2... now THATS a sport photographer camera!

Click to expand...

3FPS of the EOS R is with focus priority. IF focus priority results in accurate tracking and solid in focus shots, then 3FPS would not be that bad. It would be fine for my uses.

Battersea said:

MarshallG said:

EOS R is only 3fps. Really not a sports photographer’s camera. The 6D II isn’t a lot better, but it’s better.

The 7D2... now THATS a sport photographer camera!

Click to expand...

3FPS of the EOS R is with focus priority. IF focus priority results in accurate tracking and solid in focus shots, then 3FPS would not be that bad. It would be fine for my uses.

Click to expand...

I admit, I use only Focus Priority with my 5D4. It slows frame rate as well, although I don’t think the lower rate is published. I think there are cases where focus Priority isn’t needed, like if you’re shooting athletes outdoors and you can stop the lens down a bit anyway.

riknash said:

Sports Shooter said:

Hi all,

I am about to pull the trigger on a 6D MKII. Prices have dropped like bricks since the EOS R was announced. I can get a 6D MKII for 989 sterling and as I pay in EUR it makes it very very cheap option to enter into FF.

Reading the specs of the EOS R particularly the camera's weight it's only 160gr lighter v the 6D MKII. The EF/RF lenses are bulky anyway so in terms of weight/size there is very little difference.

I cannot justify the price difference v spec/weight/size, over 1,000 Pounds. Would you?

I am sure the EOS R will evolve and perhaps in 3-4 years it will be a better option at least for me.

Click to expand...

From a value point of view, the 6D II wins hands down. There's nothing significantly better with the EOS-R for most users looking for a new budget conscious Canon FF camera. The EOS-R has distinct limitations and its few advantages don't make up for those. For someone budget concious looking for a new FF camera, being an early adopter will leave them regretting that decision, spending more, getting less. Instead, spend less, get more and wait for the EOS-R Mk II or even the EOS-R Mk III.

Click to expand...

I certainly understand that the 6D2 is a great value. What do you consider "getting less" on the EOS R and it's limitations?

I'd 100% wait for the R (especially when the refurbs start showing up). Based on what I've seen here's what supports that:

• Higher MP
• Higher DR sensor
• More AF points/wider coverage (even adapted)
• More variety of lenses (with new R mounts and EF)
• More customization

Bought a 6DMkii and was very disappointed with the noise performance at ISO 100- so much so that I picked up an A7R2 (for about the same cost) and haven't looked back. More than a little intrigued by the R.

In what way were you disappointed with the ISO 100 noise performance of the 6D Mark II? I've had one for about a month now and I can literally see no noise at ISO 100, and even at ISO 800 the noise is barely perceptible, and easily handled in LightRoom. I traded up from the original 6D, primarily for improved focusing, and have no complaints. Image quality is superb with proper exposure.

danferrin said:

In what way were you disappointed with the ISO 100 noise performance of the 6D Mark II? I've had one for about a month now and I can literally see no noise at ISO 100, and even at ISO 800 the noise is barely perceptible, and easily handled in LightRoom. I traded up from the original 6D, primarily for improved focusing, and have no complaints. Image quality is superb with proper exposure.

Click to expand...

Might have been the individual model I had but there was lots what I can only describe as "grittyness"-especially in things like clouds and sky (actually went back through many of the images before responding to this thread). Shot some similar photos in similar lighting with my wife's A6000 (and now my A7R2) and it's not even close. Entirely possible it's user error but in any case I'd hardly expect such poor results in good light.

Played with a rented 5DMkIV for a weekend and I was much happier with the results from that vs the 6DMkii so assuming the sensors are similar in the R to the IV I'd expect similar outcomes.

mfenske said:

danferrin said:

In what way were you disappointed with the ISO 100 noise performance of the 6D Mark II? I've had one for about a month now and I can literally see no noise at ISO 100, and even at ISO 800 the noise is barely perceptible, and easily handled in LightRoom. I traded up from the original 6D, primarily for improved focusing, and have no complaints. Image quality is superb with proper exposure.

Click to expand...

Might have been the individual model I had but there was lots what I can only describe as "grittyness"-especially in things like clouds and sky (actually went back through many of the images before responding to this thread). Shot some similar photos in similar lighting with my wife's A6000 (and now my A7R2) and it's not even close. Entirely possible it's user error but in any case I'd hardly expect such poor results in good light.

Click to expand...

That kind of noise comes in with the light rather than being produced in the camera. There are two reasons for seeing it. Firstly not capturing enough light (more light and a lower percentage of it will be noise) and secondly the camera or raw tool isn't hiding it as much as it is for another camera. (Rather annoyingly everything does this differently so comparing is tough. You'd expect a smaller sensor camera to apply more noise reduction.)

mfenske said:

Played with a rented 5DMkIV for a weekend and I was much happier with the results from that vs the 6DMkii so assuming the sensors are similar in the R to the IV I'd expect similar outcomes.

Click to expand...

MarshallG said:

EOS R is only 3fps. Really not a sports photographer’s camera. The 6D II isn’t a lot better, but it’s better.

The 7D2... now THATS a sport photographer camera!

Click to expand...

I prefer to use 5d3 over 7d2 for low light sports, because of better high iso, more confident AF, and also better focal length with 70-200mm lens for me (rather than 1.6x70-200). I use 7d2 only for birds, wildlife and good light sports, 10 fps is nice!

I'd like to update my 5d3 to FF mirrorless with flip/touch screen and more resolution (for landscape), and eye af (for portraits). R would certainly be nice, but because I need FF also for sports, those 3 fps really sucks... That would be downgrade for me. However, it will be interested to see reviews, how fast, accurate and confident R's AF is for sports with EF-lenses, such as 70-200mm f2.8L ii. Maybe better luck in the future, if I haven't found something else earlier...?