Landscape - Canon R, 5D IV or stick with 6D (original)

Interested in anyone's perspectives that have used both cameras weighted toward landscape photography. In particular interested in the materiality of bump up in dynamic range and resolution in larger printed media (index figures provided by DXO directionally and comparatively interesting, but not really helpful). I like printing a couple of shots a season (sometimes more) at a larger 16 x 20 and 20 x 30-type sizes, then swap out framed pictures that hang on a wall in our house. I do photo stich some shots which obviously increases file data and helps too. While I bracket some shots that can be more meticulously planned around, I can't always and pulling up dark shadows where I've metered for a brighter sky can create tolerance issues with the 6D (no doubt some deficiencies in technique [smile]).

The 6D has been outstanding. Nonetheless I would love to have some of the new autofocus features in the R for street photography, candids and some occasional sports shooting. But the increase in dynamic range and resolution sound intriguing for landscapes that being the focus, but not really sure its a jump forward far enough to be worth upgrading. A camera like the 5DsR (w/o antialiasing filter and higher resolution) would be interesting, but I worry that may push further toward being overly specialized as more exclusively a tool designed toward studio stills and landscapes as opposed to broader application and appeal of the 5DIV and R series.

Thanks for any input. Probably "sit this one out" and wait to see what comes down the pike from Canon, but interested in any perspectives that might have me re-think it.

I am going to tell you something you may not want to hear. Upgrading from a 6D to a 5DIV or EOS R will do nothing for you in terms of output. The gain will be so insignificant. You already have everything you need to succeed.

There is a lot more to be gain by acquiring good quality lenses than changing body. This is coming from a person who owns a 5DS R. Don't let anyone tell you that you can't do this with X camera. I do wildlife and BIF with my 5DS R all the time. Would it be great if I had more FPS ? Sure but does it prevent from succeeding ? Heck no.

The only real advantage that you will gain is with the EOS R for the following reason :

1. Weight saving

2. Focus peaking and EVF are a god's gift to photographer

3. Articulated screen , if you like to VLOG.

Have you notice that none of my reason involved image quality ? It won't make you better at post processing or framing your shots. I used to shoot real estate with a A7R. It had one of the worst auto-focus of any mirrorless camera on the market. Yet I achieved amazing result with it.

If you have extra money and that you can afford the upgrade, go for it. Be happy. Don't expect you will become a Nat Geo photographer overnight because of the your camera body. You won't.

Hi Better-DY,

I had a 6D (which was fantastic) upgraded to a 5D IV and now have that and an R (they are both fantastic). All of these cameras are great fun and very rewarding to use. They will each benefit greatly from looking through the very best glass (for the subject) you can afford.

In my (humble) opinion, the 5D IV or R would represent big upgrades in terms of capability, flexibility, ergonomics and image resolution. Both also provide slightly improved dynamic range. The 5D IV is the ultimate do anything, built like a tank work-horse. The R is the next generation, moving forward whilst bridging EF and RF domains - and a work in progress.

I suggest you have a look at the in-depth 5D IV review by Dustin Abbot (who also upgraded from a 6D - and compares them in terms of image quality). He's also reviewed the R. There are links on his site to written reviews/ sample images.

Link Here

I also recommend checking out the-digital-picture.com for very detailed written reviews.

Link Here

As you’ve alluded to, you have a ‘do nothing’ option - which is absolutely fine, you already possess a truly fantastic camera - you could step-up to either the established 5D IV, or the next-gen R, or invest in better glass. There’s nothing wrong with any of these. I believe any upgrades would yield tangible benefits to your user experience and the resulting images, but whether these are worth the cost is a matter for you - part of the fun is in deciding.

Good luck...

Phil

I have the R and the mk4.

Apart from the lack of a flipping mirror there is no real magical property to a mirrorless camera despite the breathless declarations of those singing its praises.

If I were shooting landscape a lot (which I don't) I would choose the mk4.

Both cameras provide excellent IQ. The EVF on the R is great when conditions are dimmer and lower contrast. In bright sun it is pathetic.

The R allows silent shutter and has killer AF but landscape is not that demanding. Skills in exposure and PP will be a greater determinant.

The OVF of the mk4 is enormously advantageous when viewing brightly lit scens and allows you to see clearly what the EVF will never do.

Where the R has another advantage is the lack of vibration in LV shooting. However the DSLR will also do that party trick if you choose to shoot in LV.

The 6D is an excellent camera and will reward you when used with care as any camera will.

Learn good technique, and master PP and you can have superb results from your kit lens.

I bought the R when I decided to "upgrade" my old EOS 5Mk II because I mainly do macro- and microphotography. The articulated screen and the EVF are excellent for this purpose.

However for landscape and persons in bright sunlight I still prefer the old one.

Indoors or in the shadow it is very convenient to assess macro/microscopic images on the screen or in the EVF, particularly if you and/or the camera sit in an awkward position, but in sunlight the optical finder is still unsurpassed.

Symtex said:

I am going to tell you something you may not want to hear. Upgrading from a 6D to a 5DIV or EOS R will do nothing for you in terms of output. The gain will be so insignificant. You already have everything you need to succeed.

There is a lot more to be gain by acquiring good quality lenses than changing body. This is coming from a person who owns a 5DS R. Don't let anyone tell you that you can't do this with X camera. I do wildlife and BIF with my 5DS R all the time. Would it be great if I had more FPS ? Sure but does it prevent from succeeding ? Heck no.

The only real advantage that you will gain is with the EOS R for the following reason :

1. Weight saving

2. Focus peaking and EVF are a god's gift to photographer

3. Articulated screen , if you like to VLOG.

Have you notice that none of my reason involved image quality ? It won't make you better at post processing or framing your shots. I used to shoot real estate with a A7R. It had one of the worst auto-focus of any mirrorless camera on the market. Yet I achieved amazing result with it.

If you have extra money and that you can afford the upgrade, go for it. Be happy. Don't expect you will become a Nat Geo photographer overnight because of the your camera body. You won't.

Click to expand...

(Speaking to the OP, but piggybacking on your thoughts)

Yup. Going mirrorless is an exercise in access to the new RF mount, which will have some (more) juicy lenses for it, and Autofocus / EVF updates, think facial detection / Eye-AF.

However comma, the RP is a real bargain, and represents a 6DII at a bargain price with RF mount and some updates...

I know you're laser focused on DR, as you should as a landscape shooter, however, the 6DII sensor is pretty neck and neck with the original 6D, but gains another 4MP and significant ISO gains. Hard to beat the bang for the buck.

As an R owner, sure, the DR is nice, but the 6D original is fine, except perhaps the 9-Point AF, which once again, is not an image quality affair but does impact moving objects IE non-landscape stuff. The RP even, gains 88x100% frame coverage and 4779 AF points though plus the 4MP and about a 1/3 stop in ISO over your 6D and access to the RF mount. That's pretty good stuff, at $1299. A bit more gets you the 5DIV performance also at a bargain via the R.

Do you need it? No. Does it help? Yes. As a landscape photographer, the R is a better choice over the 5DIV due to the 5DIV sensor, at less weight (and cost), with EVF for exposure preview, no AFMA due to mirrorless for peak focus, and RF mount, once again for cheaper than the 5DIV.

I'd say stick to your 6D, or, go R. Even going RP, is an upgrade over your 6D frankly. The colors are more neutral / true to life, which is preferable for landscape work.

I vote R though, and not just because I own it; it's a bargain price for 5DIV sensor performance with RF mount access at the end of the day in my book.

having the M5 led me to losing some patience with the 6D depending on the circumstances. I never got into live view with the 6D and the optical viewfinder is often preferred, but the flip out screen allows more versatility for different shooting positions and situations.

Maybe the main advantage for landscape with the R over the 6D would be the freedom of movement and convenience with the live view screen. But the increased resolution is also nice.

The autofocus of the R is also a big game changer compared to the autofocus of the 6D. Though I have been impressed by my images where the 6D nailed the focus despite seeming less controlled, the auto focus of the R seems more controlled and comfortable.

The R continues to impress me. Of course, I could probably go back to the 6D and it would continue to impress me also. I guess it comes down to how you feel about it. I think the excitement with the new camera has led me to take more pictures and bring the camera into more situations where I might have deferred to the M5 for more stealth and portability.

Better-DY said:

Interested in anyone's perspectives that have used both cameras weighted toward landscape photography. In particular interested in the materiality of bump up in dynamic range and resolution in larger printed media (index figures provided by DXO directionally and comparatively interesting, but not really helpful). I like printing a couple of shots a season (sometimes more) at a larger 16 x 20 and 20 x 30-type sizes, then swap out framed pictures that hang on a wall in our house. I do photo stich some shots which obviously increases file data and helps too. While I bracket some shots that can be more meticulously planned around, I can't always and pulling up dark shadows where I've metered for a brighter sky can create tolerance issues with the 6D (no doubt some deficiencies in technique [smile]).

The 6D has been outstanding. Nonetheless I would love to have some of the new autofocus features in the R for street photography, candids and some occasional sports shooting. But the increase in dynamic range and resolution sound intriguing for landscapes that being the focus, but not really sure its a jump forward far enough to be worth upgrading. A camera like the 5DsR (w/o antialiasing filter and higher resolution) would be interesting, but I worry that may push further toward being overly specialized as more exclusively a tool designed toward studio stills and landscapes as opposed to broader application and appeal of the 5DIV and R series.

Thanks for any input. Probably "sit this one out" and wait to see what comes down the pike from Canon, but interested in any perspectives that might have me re-think it.

Click to expand...

I'm shooting 95% landscapes and macro with M50 + Ef-m lenses, although I also have 5d3 and 7d2 (+ 16-35 f4L and 70-200 2.8ii). I prefer M50's smaller size & weight (also lenses), flip touch screen (especially when using tripod or taking low angle shots), and DR is also better than my dslrs have. M50 is very fun camera to use for that kind of shooting. If I was going to choose landscape camera between R, 5d4 and 6d, it would absolutely be R, no doubts! I'd like to have 5d4 for shooting sports, though... I'd recommend you to handle R and 5d4 before you make a decision.

I went from 6D to RP and I'm glad I did but I wouldn't necessarily recommend the upgrade, especially for landscapes.

Better-DY said:

Interested in anyone's perspectives that have used both cameras weighted toward landscape photography. In particular interested in the materiality of bump up in dynamic range and resolution in larger printed media (index figures provided by DXO directionally and comparatively interesting, but not really helpful). I like printing a couple of shots a season (sometimes more) at a larger 16 x 20 and 20 x 30-type sizes, then swap out framed pictures that hang on a wall in our house. I do photo stich some shots which obviously increases file data and helps too. While I bracket some shots that can be more meticulously planned around, I can't always and pulling up dark shadows where I've metered for a brighter sky can create tolerance issues with the 6D (no doubt some deficiencies in technique [smile]).

The 6D has been outstanding. Nonetheless I would love to have some of the new autofocus features in the R for street photography, candids and some occasional sports shooting. But the increase in dynamic range and resolution sound intriguing for landscapes that being the focus, but not really sure its a jump forward far enough to be worth upgrading. A camera like the 5DsR (w/o antialiasing filter and higher resolution) would be interesting, but I worry that may push further toward being overly specialized as more exclusively a tool designed toward studio stills and landscapes as opposed to broader application and appeal of the 5DIV and R series.

Thanks for any input. Probably "sit this one out" and wait to see what comes down the pike from Canon, but interested in any perspectives that might have me re-think it.

Click to expand...

I own a 6D, 7D and now an R.

You will not see a lot of difference in image quality between the 6D and the R. It's slightly better, but not to an extent where you will really notice a day-and-night difference. 6D is impressive enough for a 20x30 print.

If you have the money, go for it!

If you have to choose between the R and a few pieces of good lenses, I would say go for the lenses!

The 6d was and is a fabulous camera, no question about it. I had one when it first came out and my friend is still getting fantastic photos from it. I originally upgraded to the 5 d mk iv for some specific reasons: 1) i became frustrated with the 9 points AF though the center point was always dead on, 2) I filled the buffer up too fast sometimes, 3) I wanted more megapixels, 4) the 5d mk iv had a joystick which made focusing easier. I was happy with the change right away and really believe I was able to do many more creative things with the 5dmkiv because of those simple differences. It never occurred to me that I would like or want a touch screen, but I also love that and find the lack of it on a 6d at times frustrating. In short, I knew what I found limiting about the 6d and appreciated the opportunity to buy a camera that went beyond it. If you don't find anything limiting about the 6d, then maybe you don't need to get a new camera now.

I recently got the R and the iq seems pretty similar to the 5d mk iv, though I barely know how to use the R. The 5d mk iv is a superb all around camera. I haven't tried the R with bif yet, but my guess is that the dslr might be better. IMO mirrorless is a bit of a hype--there are positives and negatives about it and only you can decide what you like and want.

I had a mamiya sekkor film camera and a couple of lenses for twenty years and never felt any need to upgrade, change, or add to it. It seems like cameras now are changing technologically faster than computers and cars with new models introduced every year. Do we "need" the latest and greatest? Probably not. Would they be nice to have? Sometimes. Really only you can make the decision for yourself, but there are a lot of us here who had 6ds and are happier with the bodies we are now using.

Better-DY said:

Interested in anyone's perspectives that have used both cameras weighted toward landscape photography. In particular interested in the materiality of bump up in dynamic range and resolution in larger printed media (index figures provided by DXO directionally and comparatively interesting, but not really helpful). I like printing a couple of shots a season (sometimes more) at a larger 16 x 20 and 20 x 30-type sizes, then swap out framed pictures that hang on a wall in our house. I do photo stich some shots which obviously increases file data and helps too. While I bracket some shots that can be more meticulously planned around, I can't always and pulling up dark shadows where I've metered for a brighter sky can create tolerance issues with the 6D (no doubt some deficiencies in technique [smile]).

The 6D has been outstanding. Nonetheless I would love to have some of the new autofocus features in the R for street photography, candids and some occasional sports shooting. But the increase in dynamic range and resolution sound intriguing for landscapes that being the focus, but not really sure its a jump forward far enough to be worth upgrading. A camera like the 5DsR (w/o antialiasing filter and higher resolution) would be interesting, but I worry that may push further toward being overly specialized as more exclusively a tool designed toward studio stills and landscapes as opposed to broader application and appeal of the 5DIV and R series.

Thanks for any input. Probably "sit this one out" and wait to see what comes down the pike from Canon, but interested in any perspectives that might have me re-think it.

Click to expand...

Came from the 6D and for a few years, I stuck to it as back up to the 5DMIV. I bought the 6DMII and sold the 6D eventually.

The R and RP are now my main cameras. They enable me to use all my old EF and new RF lens. They are lighter and they focus better especially in lowlight than my DSLRs.

And out in the field it's liberating to use these lighter bodies without compromising results.
--
"Photography is therapeutic."
https://500px.com/joshcruzphotos

Better-DY said:

Interested in anyone's perspectives that have used both cameras weighted toward landscape photography. In particular interested in the materiality of bump up in dynamic range and resolution in larger printed media (index figures provided by DXO directionally and comparatively interesting, but not really helpful). I like printing a couple of shots a season (sometimes more) at a larger 16 x 20 and 20 x 30-type sizes, then swap out framed pictures that hang on a wall in our house. I do photo stich some shots which obviously increases file data and helps too. While I bracket some shots that can be more meticulously planned around, I can't always and pulling up dark shadows where I've metered for a brighter sky can create tolerance issues with the 6D (no doubt some deficiencies in technique [smile]).

The 6D has been outstanding. Nonetheless I would love to have some of the new autofocus features in the R for street photography, candids and some occasional sports shooting. But the increase in dynamic range and resolution sound intriguing for landscapes that being the focus, but not really sure its a jump forward far enough to be worth upgrading. A camera like the 5DsR (w/o antialiasing filter and higher resolution) would be interesting, but I worry that may push further toward being overly specialized as more exclusively a tool designed toward studio stills and landscapes as opposed to broader application and appeal of the 5DIV and R series.

Thanks for any input. Probably "sit this one out" and wait to see what comes down the pike from Canon, but interested in any perspectives that might have me re-think it.

Click to expand...

I am a (too) longtime user of an EOS 5D2.

I am pretty critical of my work and image quality. I sell my work and want it to be as good as it possibly can be, and there's the rub. As far as I am concerned, a better camera will improve my results. I can take care of composition and exposure, but the results (while still pretty good) are ultimately limited by the technical capabilities of my equipment. When I get a keeper, cleaner shadows, or sharper details or more resolution would always be a good thing. Moreover, there are sometimes shots that I simply miss out on because of technical limitations, like DR (mainly handheld shooting).

I am in the process of cataloguing my work for a website, here are some takeaways:

The better the lens the better the photo,

The 5D2 AF is unreliable - I noticed the rate of keepers improve when I changed to LV focusing. Mirrorless doesn't have the same issues with focus as DSLR's.

There are workarounds for DR like filters and bracketing, but the more you can push a file, the better as far as I am concerned. (My favoured method is to do two RAW conversions and combine them - no ghosting. The more latitude in that file, the better).

Resolution: Probably my biggest want. For cropping to different formats, and 'extending' FL - a 16-35mm on a 5Dsr becomes a 16-50 compared to your 6D.

If I could afford it, I would update (but it might be Sony, ssshh...)

Better-DY said:

Interested in anyone's perspectives that have used both cameras weighted toward landscape photography. In particular interested in the materiality of bump up in dynamic range and resolution in larger printed media (index figures provided by DXO directionally and comparatively interesting, but not really helpful). I like printing a couple of shots a season (sometimes more) at a larger 16 x 20 and 20 x 30-type sizes, then swap out framed pictures that hang on a wall in our house. I do photo stich some shots which obviously increases file data and helps too. While I bracket some shots that can be more meticulously planned around, I can't always and pulling up dark shadows where I've metered for a brighter sky can create tolerance issues with the 6D (no doubt some deficiencies in technique [smile]).

The 6D has been outstanding. Nonetheless I would love to have some of the new autofocus features in the R for street photography, candids and some occasional sports shooting. But the increase in dynamic range and resolution sound intriguing for landscapes that being the focus, but not really sure its a jump forward far enough to be worth upgrading. A camera like the 5DsR (w/o antialiasing filter and higher resolution) would be interesting, but I worry that may push further toward being overly specialized as more exclusively a tool designed toward studio stills and landscapes as opposed to broader application and appeal of the 5DIV and R series.

Thanks for any input. Probably "sit this one out" and wait to see what comes down the pike from Canon, but interested in any perspectives that might have me re-think it.

Click to expand...

I use all 3. Been shooting landscapes today on the R more or less for the first time - certainly the first time with the Lee holder on. It's a bit lighter to carry, and I do like the sensor, but the 6D still takes great pics unless you want to print very large. Where the R really wins is if you want to use a TS-E - much better user experience, you can even do it handheld.

Appreciate the input from those that have posted. I think if the R had image stabilization, lacked the antialiasing filter and was more like a 35-40MP sensor, I'd probably make the leap (as arbitrary as anything else), but some great comments about the equipment only doing so much anyway. A good photographers' results (in most respects) have far less to do with the equipment and I'm going to lump it for time being and work on technique and getting up earlier and staying out later!

I know a fellow who became kinda famous on Instagram for his landscapes to the point where canon sent him a 5d4 to use prior to release. Sadly he had to send it back and continue with his 6d.

He got caught up in the mirrorless hype and decided to try a Sony.

He detested the mirrorless and wished he stuck with what he had, nothing to do with Sony more the fact it was mirrorless.

The 5d4 will not (imo) get you better images unless you need the extra megapixels for large printing, Landscape photography is not terribly demanding. But if you want a nicer camera with the bells and whistles for other types of photography the 5d4 is a beautiful camera IMO. Plus you can flip to live view for the mirrorless perspective.

All landscape pros are still on 5D4 or 5DSR and waiting for something better do be released.

George Zip said:

I know a fellow who became kinda famous on Instagram for his landscapes to the point where canon sent him a 5d4 to use prior to release. Sadly he had to send it back and continue with his 6d.

He got caught up in the mirrorless hype and decided to try a Sony.

He detested the mirrorless and wished he stuck with what he had, nothing to do with Sony more the fact it was mirrorless.

The 5d4 will not (imo) get you better images unless you need the extra megapixels for large printing, Landscape photography is not terribly demanding. But if you want a nicer camera with the bells and whistles for other types of photography the 5d4 is a beautiful camera IMO. Plus you can flip to live view for the mirrorless perspective.

Click to expand...

The OP did mention he likes to print large, and I think that is one of the main points when it comes to choosing cameras.

I have no doubt a 6D would be fine for Instagram work, I wonder whether you could even tell the difference between a 6D and a Phase One on the web.

I'm a sucker for detail. They say the larger the print, the further back you should view it, but I think there is something special if you can examine the extra detail that can be afforded by 'better' equipment up close. Of course, it's not just the camera. The lens plays a big role as does PP and (I think) output sharpening.

There are several factors at play, but as someone who prints, more Mpix = more d.p.i.

A 'better' camera can make a difference for printed work. Online? Probably not.

[I realize you did mention about printing, I just think you touched on the real differentiator between how we expect to display our work, and then what our (or our customers) expectations are.]

It's a question that has been burning for me, too. No one has mentioned the one, killer, feature of the 6D that has kept me from jumping: Magic Lantern . I love the enhanced capabilities, and ML has sort of future-proofed the 6D.

I am currently using a 5D MkIII and reasonably happy with the results I have been getting for the past 5 years or so. Mainly used for landscape and travel photography.

Recently I have been considering upgrading to either the 5D IV or R but just don't know that I will be getting any more bang for my buck.

Heres my dilemma - buy a Mk4 and stay with my current set of lens (16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 50, 85). I know I can still use these with a EOS R but those RF lens are sweet.

Alternatively buy the EOS R and over time sell the EF lens and replace with RF lens.

But the thing that is holding me and I strongly suspect many Canon users back is that the 5DIV is relatively old now and the EOS R has many of the same specs particularly as I am primarily a landscape photographer, so why buy either which leads to us all sitting on the fence and waiting for the next gen EOS R which will effectively be the 5D MkV !!

To the OP. If I had to upgrade from the 6D I would definitely buy the EOS R particularly if you were not already heavily invested in good (f2.8 L) lens. Reason being you can then invest in the new RF lens which should be more future proof for future mirrorless cameras.

As many have already said - good glass is king. Bodies change every other year.