Canon R6 Mark II vs used Sony A7R IV

I’m trying to decide which camera I should buy to upgrade my aging 6D from 10 years ago. I pretty much ruled out the Sony A7 IV as the R6 Mark II is a slightly better option in almost every way. However, at that price point, I could get a barely used A7R IV. Megapixels aren’t everything but 61 megapixels have appeal especially when cropping. I mostly do portraits, landscape, and wildlife. The R6 Mark II brings a lot to the table however, including much better autofocus and shutter speed for wildlife. Ultimately both would be fine but I’m having a hard time picking one. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Either would be an improvement over your 6D, so it's not a bad decision to have.

Have you used Sony cameras before? Do you have Sony mount lenses or Canon mount lenses or both?

And what do you do with your images? Do you make huge prints? Or do you mostly deliver digital files to portrait or landscape clients?

jumpthesnark said:

Either would be an improvement over your 6D, so it's not a bad decision to have.

Click to expand...

For sure.

jumpthesnark said:

Have you used Sony cameras before?

Click to expand...

I have a Sony Z-EV10. I like it enough.

jumpthesnark said:

Do you have Sony mount lenses or Canon mount lenses or both?

Click to expand...

At the moment, they are all EF lenses but I was under the impression that with adapters they work well both on RF and E cameras.

jumpthesnark said:

And what do you do with your images? Do you make huge prints? Or do you mostly deliver digital files to portrait or landscape clients?

Click to expand...

General digital purposes, selling them online on print-on-demand services (which can have large canvases), prints (regular sizes, only occasionally large ones), and clients (digital mostly, occasionally prints, sometimes large). I plan to do a few projects in which the images would be printed in coffee table sized books but I believe either would be suitable for that.

I think you'd be more immediately comfortable with the Canon than the Sony, as the controls and menus would be a lot closer to what you're used to with the 6D.

But being used to something is no reason, on its own, to make a decision like this.

The Sony has the R6 MkII beat as far as resolution is concerned. So the files will be much bigger. Will that matter to you? Probably only in that you'll have more room to crop if needed. But if you fill your frame, then that doesn't matter as much.

I had a Sony. Couldn't stand it. It felt fiddly. Menus were terrible. I really felt as if I was using a camera that was designed for the engineers who built it, not for the photographers who would use it.

That's just to say that I think you should go try both. Go to a camera store and see what both cameras feel like. Are the buttons where you naturally feel they should be? Are the menus clear and intuitive? Can you take photos without concentrating so much on the camera in your hands that you lose sight of what you're photographing?

We could talk specs all day. People here tend to. But there's more to falling in love with a camera than that. Or falling in like, even. So much has to do with having a camera that makes you want to go out and challenge yourself to take better and more interesting photos.

Circling back to your question, both cameras will suit your needs. Go try them out and see which one suits your soul.

Good luck with your choice and let us know how it goes!

Never understood why people hate Sony menus so much. If you configure your camera the way you like it then menu diving becomes a thing of the past. Rant over.

I think you're deciding factor should really be the lenses you already own and the lenses you think you want. Don't forget their costs.

Curious to know why the A7iv is out of the running ?

Gut feeling says stick with a Canon if you intend to use your existing EF lenses and need faster burst shooting.

One thing while cropping will give you more reach, it isn't really a substitute for picking the right lens to use in the first place.

Ask this question on the Sony forum for the flip side of the coin.

mapleshots said:

jumpthesnark said:

Either would be an improvement over your 6D, so it's not a bad decision to have.

Click to expand...

For sure.

mapleshots said:

Have you used Sony cameras before?

Click to expand...

I have a Sony Z-EV10. I like it enough.

mapleshots said:

Do you have Sony mount lenses or Canon mount lenses or both?

Click to expand...

At the moment, they are all EF lenses but I was under the impression that with adapters they work well both on RF and E cameras.

Click to expand...

They work well with RF cameras, they can be made to work a bit with expensive third party adapter, not every adapter works with every lens. Focusing speed will not be up to par with your DSLR or the R6II...

mapleshots said:

I’m trying to decide which camera I should buy to upgrade my aging 6D from 10 years ago. I pretty much ruled out the Sony A7 IV as the R6 Mark II is a slightly better option in almost every way. However, at that price point, I could get a barely used A7R IV. Megapixels aren’t everything but 61 megapixels have appeal especially when cropping. I mostly do portraits, landscape, and wildlife. The R6 Mark II brings a lot to the table however, including much better autofocus and shutter speed for wildlife. Ultimately both would be fine but I’m having a hard time picking one. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Click to expand...

I suggest that you try the Sony A7RIV and figure out if you like it. If you do more landscape than wildlife it might be worth a look if you are printing big sizes.

I'm a Canon and Sony user. During the holidays there were some deals here on the A7RIV + vertical grip. I passed on it because I was more interested in the A7IV with a newer AF technology. Three weeks ago I tried the A7IV and the R6MKII at a local camera store. I didn't like the handling of the Sony. It (+24-105/4 G) felt tight in my right hand. Right there I eliminated it from my buying decision whereas the R6MKII handled perfectly. Eventually I bought the Canon.

Nusratty said:

Never understood why people hate Sony menus so much. If you configure your camera the way you like it then menu diving becomes a thing of the past. Rant over.

Click to expand...

But you do understand that there are people who hate Sony menus, even after they configured the camera, right?

As others have said, I would try to handle both, if I were you. From what I can tell, the only advantage of the Sony would be for landscapes, if you really want to print big, or just really like looking very closely at your images at 100% on a screen from close up. For portraits or wildlife, I would prefer the Canon. I have the R6II, and even though I've only had it for a couple of weeks, I already love it. It is just a really well designed camera, and the performance (AF, burst speed, etc.) is the best of any camera I've handled.

mapleshots said:

I’m trying to decide which camera I should buy to upgrade my aging 6D from 10 years ago. I pretty much ruled out the Sony A7 IV as the R6 Mark II is a slightly better option in almost every way. However, at that price point, I could get a barely used A7R IV.

Click to expand...

Why are you ruling out the A7IV while considering the A7RV?

mapleshots said:

Megapixels aren’t everything but 61 megapixels have appeal especially when cropping.

Click to expand...

I think Mp count is overrated. I have the R5. I've had the R. I also purchased A7IV next the R5. For me 30 or 32Mp is the sweet spot, I don't need more, although I'm uses to the 45Mp of the R5.

mapleshots said:

I mostly do portraits, landscape, and wildlife. The R6 Mark II brings a lot to the table however, including much better autofocus and shutter speed for wildlife. Ultimately both would be fine but I’m having a hard time picking one. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Click to expand...

Think about lenses. You can run EF lenses via MC11 on a Sony body, and that will certainly work for landscapes, also for portraits with not a whole lot of movement (it depends on the lens, do your research), but for wild life I would go with either EF/RF on a Canon body or FE lenses on a Sony body.

Sony has generally more options for it's FE mount. You can't have the 600/800mm f/11 primes on a Sony body though.

I'm not sure what lenses you have that will be applicable, but that could be a factor if you have some good EF lenses. As it turns out, in my case, I had been shooting Canon APS-C for years, and my "L" EF lenses were about 20 years old. I spent a lot and got all RF lenses (mostly "L," but I have some nice consumer lenses I like, particularly the RF100-400, RF16f2.8, and RF24-240).

Canon RF lenses are very good but more than a tad expensive. Sony has the advantage of licensing 3rd party lenses and has been around for many more years, so there are many more native lenses at a wider range (often lower) of prices. When comparing prices, you should map out what lenses you think you will likely get in the next few years.

There are a lot of pros and cons to each body, and I would suggest looking at multiple reviews. If you are going to shoot a video, the 4K capabilities are quite different.

mapleshots said:

I’m trying to decide which camera I should buy to upgrade my aging 6D from 10 years ago. I pretty much ruled out the Sony A7 IV as the R6 Mark II is a slightly better option in almost every way. However, at that price point, I could get a barely used A7R IV. Megapixels aren’t everything but 61 megapixels have appeal especially when cropping. I mostly do portraits, landscape, and wildlife. The R6 Mark II brings a lot to the table however, including much better autofocus and shutter speed for wildlife. Ultimately both would be fine but I’m having a hard time picking one. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Click to expand...