Canon EOS R owners, upgrade plans?

KEG wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

I have EOS M3, M6 and M50, all of them are 24 MP, no camera with 20 MP sensor can be considered an upgrade from any of them, no matter how good it is, the pixels aren't there.

I would remotely reconsider if R6 where around $1000 with lens.

Just on the basis of cost alone Sony is looking better and better everyday.

By this logic your M3 is an upgrade from a 1DX3

Gearheads say the darndest things

For landscapes and portraits, that is a definite yes.

1DX3 has better DR & color depth than your M bodies.

God I hope so, at 6 times the price it better be.

Access to better lenses too.

EOS M cameras are fully compatible with any EF lens ever made

But won't get anywhere near as much out of them as a FF body for landscapes.

Which given my decades of experience with both crop and ff I know is fairytale with zero merit in real-life.

I agree with you on landscapes, with two caveats.

You need a tripod more often on smaller sensors.  (I use a tripod most of the time anyway)

You have the best possible selection of ultra wide lenses with FF.   Sure, some people don't even use ultra wide for landscapes, but some of us do.  There is no equivalent to the  TSE 17 for any other format.  There is no equivalent to the EF 11-14 for any other format.  If you don't shoot them, it doesn't matter, but if you like ultra wide, there is no substitute for the great FF ultra wide lenses.

Some are getting closer now.  There is no reason that there couldn't be.  But today FF is king on lens selection.  You have had the Sigma 8-16 for a while.  It has that nasty mustache distortion, though.   Fuji has a good 8-16 now.   Laowa makes a 9mm Zero D prime, but it has a lot of vignetting.   We're getting some "almost as good" things here.

If MP is all that matters,

We should of course be shooting medium format

why bother with M mount bodies at all when you can get a 41MP smartphone for a couple hundred dollars?

because the image quality difference between aps-c and fullframe is almost theoritical

It's way more tangible than the difference between 20 and 24 MP. Especially when coupled with the generally better lenses FF can make full use of.

I think I refer again to the decades part.

do yourself a favor, buy M6mk2 and EF-M 32 mm and see which 20 MP camera outperforms that combo

I would be happy with that sensor.  The 20 MP sensor in question will outperform it in every area that doesn't need the resolution.  In low light without flash, action, portraits, events, and photojournalism, it will slaughter the M sensor.  There are even some landscapes where the resolution is not important, like backlit scenes with a lot of flare or hazy scenes or sunrises on foggy mornings.  There are only so many pictures that get mileage out of the resolution.

To our other discussion, don't know why y'all don't get the same kind of deals we get in the US.   It seems like big price reductions are great for moving tons of older products.  The top tier of canon products are crazy expensive here.  The second or third tier down is dirt cheap, though.