I'm loving this review on the R6 MK2

Justme wrote:

Ephemeris wrote:

Justme wrote:

Ephemeris wrote:

Thankyou, very interesting to watch and listen.

He's a lot better bird photographer than I am but the improvements are possibly the AF, or image recognition and tracking.

I did notice he had the exposure simulator turned on, where I often read we maybe should switch it off. The light was quite bright so maybe it's less relavant.

Thanks again

What I liked from the review, better AF, less rolling shutter effect, longer battery life, similar high-ISO noise to orginal R6 (R6 still slightly better), no over-heating issue like original R6 - not that I have ever done video with a camera but plenty with a camcorder. Icing on the cake, same price as the original R6.

Exposure simulator may be for the audience watching the video.

Thanks JustMe. I hadn't considered that at all. My thoughts were that he said a lot of positives, and explained where it struggled, why and how he worked around but with it switched on. It seemed to before better than my R5 but his light was much brighter than I often have in the UK.

A very positive review. I like how he also used some of the lenses I own including the Canon 500 f4 II + 1.4x and 400 5.6L. I like the RF800 f/11 and that lens is very affordable. Good light use, mostly.

Yes, the R7 has more reach and more pixels on the subject but too many compromises to my liking such as not good for low light, rolling shutter, IBIS not as good compared to a IBIS on a FF like R6 or R6 MK2, more possibility of smearing due to greater pixel density compared to R6.

I'm going thru the above pro and cons right now. Who knows, down the road I may also get a R7 MK2 When I started in wildlife photography, I would carry everything but the kitchen sink. Now, I know what I need to carry for a specific outting and prefer to go as light as possible.

He didn’t mention too many negatives except for the buffer size when shooting 40 fps, a feature I will no doubt reset to 20 or less or shoot CRaw or Jpeg. Also, where something is in the way such as stalks of grass in the way of the subject catching the focus but he just sets it to a more precise AF to get around the issue if it comes up. I don’t remember any other issues than those? I will need to rewatch it.

I think you have summed it up well. It appears to work better than the R5 but I don't have that lens, that light and certainly not the skill.

40fps is a lot of images in a burst for sure.

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/image/55043863/small.jpg