Trade my Canon 6dii for Canon M6ii?

nolten wrote:

Hi RLight. Sure the tradeoffs of M portability are certainly valid. But the OP has 6D2 and 24-105L. To say that you can get equal optical performance from an RP + 24-105 STM is not true and therefore not a valid comparison. If weight savings is the goal go M.

We've just traded posts regarding 5D4 and G1X3 and agree that each has its place and will yield excellent images but are realistic about ultimate capabilities. In addition to the gear listed below, I have had an 6D2 + 24-70 f4 L for about a year as backup to my 5D4. I considered an RP to pair with my M6II for travel weight savings and battery compatibility. It really only made sense if I paired the RP with the RF 24-105 L and that ended up being too costly and too little weight savings for what I'd get. I've made the general decision that trading my 16 year investment in EF glass for RF isn't worth it for me. After using the mirrorless M, I still prefer a mirrored camera if I can afford the weight - which I usually can.

So it seems to me that the only reason to consider the FF RP is for better image quality than an M6II or G1X3 and that would probably require L glass. I second your suggestion above about the OP keeping her 6D and adding an M6II. Each compliments the other. Changing a 6D2 to an equivalently lensed RP is just a lateral move with tradeoffs in both directions.

So it depends. The RF 35 + RP is much smaller in total package than say a 6D + EF 35mm IS USM, and has more teeth. Likewise, the RP has full AF coverage vs the 6D's, both of them, have the small AF coverage leading to focus and recompose. Also, the EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, is inferior to the new RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 IS STM in terms of total size savings and presumably performance as the wide end of the EF lens isn't so hot, but the RF using software correctional data compounded with reduced flange distance design is a marriage of technology that allows us to have our cake and eat it (smaller, and better).

Really the glass necessary to make RF a real challenger to the M mount doesn't exist just yet; slower ultra wide zooms and telephoto zooms. It's half way there with the RF 35, RF 50 and RF 24-105 + 24-240 non-L lenses. No, they won't compete with L glass, but, they do the job better than EF-M glass, I know because I used to own em. Now lastly, the RP which makes the footprint actually competitive isn't so hot itself: it needs a refresh vs the M6 Mark II which is a rocket ship by comparison.

All to say the M isn't going anywhere, just yet, and the non L RF glass isn't without merits. I can tell you having done a 5D III and EF-L glass and then the R with RF 35 and 24-240, you can cover most things with the 35+24-240 combo, and it's deadly with the R, and not too costly to change over to either and represents a sizable weight and bulk savings vs say a 6D II + EF 35mm f/2 IS USM + EF 28-300L.

To your point, it really depends on the user. The 6D II is no slouch, nor is EF-L glass. But an R or RP + non-L RF glass is a real contender, even if it doesn't match L grade glass, does it need to? I'll answer the question and say no. But, I'll also say as an RF-L owner, that expensive heavy glass, is worth every penny. That RF 28-70 F/2L, is AMAZING. I just can't part with it, even after it's injured my wrist in using it because it's so heavy, it's results are non-replaceable... EF-L glass is similar, RF-L is better. And yes, it costs alot.

Personally I was very happy with the R + M setup I had. Drove the wife bonkers though and got in the way of real life. The G5X II, doesn't and does the job well enough.

I personally look forward to a G1X Mark IV though. That G1X III would've been perfect if it's AF had been a hair faster for the type of shooting I do.

I don't know Canon will ever do another G1X though. The M system may be the spiritual successor...