R6 VS R3 Which camera is better?

Hoka Hey wrote:

davev8 wrote:

tdbmd wrote:

photographer daniel wrote:

tdbmd wrote:

I believe you are overthinking it. If your budget allows, get the R3 when available, if not, you will be completely happy with the R5/6

I'm sure I'm be pleased with the R6 and it's a very big leap forward from what I currently have.
My budget is exactly for R3, but yes prefer to test another model if it can give me what I need and not straight run and spend such a high amount.

I would buy the R6 if you have the amount for an R3 and invest the rest in glass.

this is what i say in a post above

R3= $6000

R6@ $2500+RF 70-200F2.8 @ $2750= $5250 so probably can squeeze a RF24-105F4is as a kit lens in the price

the advantage is the R6 with RF glass is more likly to have more FPS and faster AF and produce sharper results than the R3 with EF lenses

Hmmm… R3 pushes the glass faster, focuses quicker and shoots more FPS on the EF 500 f/4 ii than the R5/R6. The EF 500 f/4 ii was first shopped in mid 2012. There are lots of other reports of the R3 working amazingly well with old EF glass.

The R3 also supports higher shutter speeds, 30 ES and 12 MS, on a broader range of older lenses than the R5/6 based on the limitations lens list in the R5/6 manual which are not present in the R3 manual. Remember, the R6 is limited to MS due to rolling shutter which makes a big difference in shooting competitions. So, you are shooting 12 fps rather than 30 fps to begin with. Then, the 12 fps is limited to certain lenses for the R6, but not the R3 if you want to use MF for some reason on the R3.

The R3 shoots more frames in focus more often than the R6 with more older glass which OP says he has. Getting the R3 would give OP better results with all his EF glass immediately whereas buying the R6 plus an RF 70-200 would give him good results with that one zoom focal length at the expense of rolling shutter and far fewer FPS with all his glass, even the new RF glass.

i say the R6 is "more likely" to have more FPS etc as we do not know what EF lenses the OP has and its a bit early for many real world tests with the R3 and EF vs RF glass but the general consensus with the R5/6 is they are  better with RF glass than EF glass but EF glass works better on the R5/6 than on a DSLR..i think you are going to find some EF lenses that are hardware limited and no matter what body you have are not going to make them AF any faster..and any difference between body to body are probably not noticed in real life

i would have to put my 5Dmki from 2005 side by side with the R6 to see if my EF85mmF1,8 af is any faster..it seemed instant on the 5D

you have to remember the OP is coming from a 6Dmkii with 5 fps and only the center AF point rated only to -3.5EV compared to -6 to 7 EV for ALL points for the R3/6  (this is not twice as good but 3 times better) only 45AF points clumped in the middle vs 4000+ over most of the frame, eye AF and tracking that will seam on another planet

so the R6 is a massive upgrade its huge over the 6Dii

so is the R3 but to realize any extra advantage of the R3 will be in extreme cases

the % of extra upgrades is slim for double the money for the OP use

BUT the advantage still goes to the R6 with affording RF glass

1 you always have AF over the full-frame with RF glass not always the case with EF glass

2 its reported that IS/IBIS works better with RF glass

3 RF glass is often sharper than the equiv EF glass

4 often other advantages with RF glass like the aforementioned 70-200 its the most compact 70-200F2.8 available

5 no adaptor to mess with and /increase size

6 i have already seen EF lenses drop in second-hand value (in UK) now would be a good time to change them..i imagine the decline will be faster when RF availability is back to normal