From 6D to RP? (R?)

christ0f wrote:

Hello,

I upgraded to the R from the 6D, which I still have as a second camera. I have a couple of observations that I haven't seen above.

Now the RP is in a very good price so I was considering a change of my still good, old 6D. The main reasons are: it's lighter, better AF and video that I do occasionally and focus stacking - doing lot of macro with my 100 2.8 (non-L)

I have some doubts:

- the viewfinder, I'm simply used to that from dslr, I have seen few of mirrorless, and thought Fuji X-T3 has a one that is ok, but I guess RP is not in the same league

The OVF of the 6D is still much nicer to look through on a nice day.

In low light, the EVF is like a night vision scope with perfect color. You can actually see things that are too dark for me to see with the naked eye.

The EVF keeps the sun from blinding your shooting eye, when you want to take a backlit picture with the sun in it.

EXPOSURE PREVIEW is exceptionally cool. You can see a very good approximation of the final image in the viewfinder before you press the shutter button. As you adjust the exposure, you see the change in the image in the viewfinder. As you move the camera around, you see the way the different light and different relative direction of the light affects the exposure in real time, so there are no more backlit shots fooling the camera into under exposing the subject and no more having to remember to change the settings every time you point the camera at a different part of the room.  Exposure preview has eliminated probably 90% of my exposure mistakes.

- dynamic range - what I already read, I'm not gaining here, which is a pity after those years

The R is better for dynamic range than the RP, and maybe even the R6, because of Dual Pixel RAW, which adds a full stop to the high end of the exposure. You can't use Dual Pixel RAW with processing intensive functions, like eye AF, silent shutter, high speed continuous shooting, and others, because writing the Dual Pixel RAW file takes so much processing power.

- high iso noise - I'm often doing some fire-camp sessions, using ISO 6400

- generally ergonomics: I'm not sure how I also survive without the top screen..

- battery life

I'd get the set probably with native 24-105 L and 35 1.8 (to replace my Sigma 35 1.4, making set really light). Still keeping 16-35/4 via adapter.

Many of the ticks here would be probably solved by R (not RP), but that is more expensive and I don't know why... has not the focus stacking on board. R5/R6 looks ideal on paper, but R6 is 2.5x more expensive that RP and 1.5 than R.

From your experience, I guess many of you have switched from 6D or 5D II/III to those - do you have some comments?

Thanks!

The focusing advantage is huge, particularly in low light and with fast lenses. With slower lenses in bright light, there is less of an advantage. You still have almost the entire frame to place the focus point, but that center point on the 6D does great in bright light or with a flash that has focus assist. Exposure preview is totally useless with flash. In bright even light or with flash, you might still prefer your 6D.

My next camera purchase will be an RP to replace my 6D as my second camera. I want it for the focus stacking and for a smaller travel camera.

The vast majority of the advantages of the R5 and R6 are for action and wildlife shooting. I like shooting action and wildlife, but I don't get to do it often, so they are not worth the upgrade to me. IBIS is a big advantage to some, particularly those who use vintage and manual lenses a lot, but most of my lenses are stabilized, and I often use the ultimate stabilization device, a heavy tripod.