Thoughts on M6 Mark II or R8 for new small kit

First: it's hard to beat the "night shot" mode in modern phone, especially without some form of support.

I have both the M6II and the R8 and for most things, I reach for the R8 most of the time. It has faster and more accurate AF and more importantly, for me, a useable electronic shutter.

When using relatively small lenses like the RF16 and RF50STM, the R8 stays compact, but it's hard to beat the M6II with the EF-M22mm and other native lenses.

SHOT IN ROME said:

I do not want to carry my FF Nikon anymore, and with the monster lenses it is just way too big and heavy. I will not carry it without a strong purpose.

I am looking for a new kit for two uses- daytime carry for random street shots, and more careful subtle or extreme night work where I would even carry a monopod if needed. I occasionally print 40 x 60. Dynamic range matters, intelligent tracking/focus etc. do not.

I was very excited about the relative cost and weight of the R50 APS-C with the new super lightweight RF-S 10-18, but after a night of tests I did not think it offered enough of an upgrade from my iPhone 14 Pro shooting large RAW at night. Sure, there was some detail improvement, but not enough, and it did not even handle light blooms much better. But then, in the past the APS-C on a Nikon and a Sony did not satisfy me either.

So I am wondering if the M6 Mark II might be *enough* of a bump beyond the 24 MP APS-C cameras, allowing me to stay small. Canon claims that they improved the sensor for the R7, but that camera is larger and heavier, and the detail may still not be there. So the next option is FF. I see that the R8 is quite small and with the RF 16mm and RF-S 10-18, I could stay very small.

Any comments/suggestions?

I am cross posting to both the M and R forums.

A small sample of legacy work can be found at https://www.cameronmcnall.com/foto

Click to expand...

The R8 shares a sensor with the R6 II, but the latter is a bigger & heavier body because it is stabilised, has a better EVF and a bigger battery. That 24MP sensor drops to 9MP if you use the RF-S 10-18mm which, in terms of photon noise and depth of field, is equivalent to a full-frame 16-28mm f/7.3-10, so not a terrific night-time lens. The new full-frame 16-28mm f/2.8 would be bigger and better but is expensive here compared with its American price, or there's the RF 10-20mm f/4, still quite small but more expensive than the R6 body.

The smallest RF lens is the 28mm f/2.8 - it's very good too, though, like the 16mm prime, it's unstabilised on the R8. I have the 16mm & 28mm pair and wouldn't consider swapping them for the RF-S 10-18mm on any full-frame camera.

Hi, thanks! I am new to the Canon universe, so I wrote the incorrect lens! It is the RF 15-30 that I would use with the R8. At 13.oz, it is smaller than my Nikons, certainly the zooms. In the old days I paid for giant lenses that were fast and had little distortion, but I can see that Canon is premiating size and weight by assuming computation to clean things up, and IS and sensors can allow for much smaller glass. Really my concern is not so much money but how I can go as small as possible. I hoped that the amazingly small R50 with its small lens could do it, but no. So before I jump in to FF, I am just checking on whether the larger M6 Mark II might be a credible path. Or get other suggestions.

I have both R8 & M6II. Both outperform my iPhone 16 Pro in challenging situations (low light, need for reach, etc.) requiring better glass.

The M6II is a wonderful size for travel. IMHO the M6II paired with either the EFM 11-22 or EFM 32 is amazing. I also use the 18-150 - decent lens but not on the same level as the 11-22/32. Note: the M6II has been discontinued altho good copies may still be available from reputable sources. The M6II has an internal battery that keeps the correct time/date setting until it goes bad. Replacing that battery is apparently difficult or impossible. Do a search for more info. If the time/date is not important, it may not be a problem. I do plan to use my M6II as long as possible, knowing that I probably cannot repair/replace it when it fails.

The R8 is also travel-friendly sized plus offers the advantages of full frame. A good (and growing) selection of R lenses is available plus most EF glass can be used with an adapter. To maximize the R8's potential, the use of L glass (larger, heavier, more expensive) needs to be considered.

Except for size the R8 beats the M6II for most purposes, especially low light photography. If I should return to a one body solution I would keep the R8 and acquire lenses as needed - but the M6II/11-22 lens would definitely be missed.

SHOT IN ROME said:

Hi, thanks! I am new to the Canon universe, so I wrote the incorrect lens! It is the RF 15-30 that I would use with the R8. At 13.oz, it is smaller than my Nikons, certainly the zooms. In the old days I paid for giant lenses that were fast and had little distortion, but I can see that Canon is premiating size and weight by assuming computation to clean things up, and IS and sensors can allow for much smaller glass. Really my concern is not so much money but how I can go as small as possible. I hoped that the amazingly small R50 with its small lens could do it, but no. So before I jump in to FF, I am just checking on whether the larger M6 Mark II might be a credible path. Or get other suggestions.

Click to expand...

I have a small herd of various EOS M cameras, but the M6 II was always too big and expensive for me. It's obsolete now, though repair parts should still be available for another for years. Its unstabilised sensor is basically the same as the stabilised one in the R7. My favourite EF-M lens is the 11-22mm IS (18-35mm f/6.3-9 full-frame equivalent); its image quality on my M100 is very nearly as good as the image quality of the much maligned RF 16mm f/2.8 on my EOS R, though it won't give me the same choice of shutter speeds in low light.

The 16-28mm f/2.8 is ⅛" longer and a couple of ounces heavier (in Imperial units) than the 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 but it is 1⅓ to 2⅓ stops faster, so it's a much better proposition for low light. It is $700 more expensive to you though. All the full-frame lenses I've mentioned do depend on electronic distortion control which can't be switched off in the camera viewfinder or for OOC JPEG output. If you're using a RAW converter make sure it's got good distortion and vignetting control. DPP4 is excellent, I prefer DxO PhotoLab for its DeepPRIME noise reduction alternatives, though PhotoLab does give a wider than expected field of view when correcting barrel distortion. PhotoLab gives my 16mm a very similar field of view to that of my TTArtisan 14mm lens.

JRET said:

I have both R8 & M6II. Both outperform my iPhone 16 Pro in challenging situations (low light, need for reach, etc.) requiring better glass.

The M6II is a wonderful size for travel. IMHO the M6II paired with either the EFM 11-22 or EFM 32 is amazing. I also use the 18-150 - decent lens but not on the same level as the 11-22/32. Note: the M6II has been discontinued altho good copies may still be available from reputable sources. The M6II has an internal battery that keeps the correct time/date setting until it goes bad. Replacing that battery is apparently difficult or impossible. Do a search for more info. If the time/date is not important, it may not be a problem. I do plan to use my M6II as long as possible, knowing that I probably cannot repair/replace it when it fails.

The R8 is also travel-friendly sized plus offers the advantages of full frame. A good (and growing) selection of R lenses is available plus most EF glass can be used with an adapter. To maximize the R8's potential, the use of L glass (larger, heavier, more expensive) needs to be considered.

Except for size the R8 beats the M6II for most purposes, especially low light photography. If I should return to a one body solution I would keep the R8 and acquire lenses as needed - but the M6II/11-22 lens would definitely be missed.

Click to expand...

Well although I have been focussed on assembling something as small as possible, I understand that I could couple the R8 with a range of great older lens similar to the monster Nikons I don't want to use anymore, and if in the future I need them, it is good to have them. Aside from the slow aperture, will I be disappointed with the performance of the RF 15-30? It is always a slippery slope- slightly bigger camera, slightly bigger lens, and then suddenly the radical makeover is looking less radical!

SHOT IN ROME said:

JRET said:

I have both R8 & M6II. Both outperform my iPhone 16 Pro in challenging situations (low light, need for reach, etc.) requiring better glass.

The M6II is a wonderful size for travel. IMHO the M6II paired with either the EFM 11-22 or EFM 32 is amazing. I also use the 18-150 - decent lens but not on the same level as the 11-22/32. Note: the M6II has been discontinued altho good copies may still be available from reputable sources. The M6II has an internal battery that keeps the correct time/date setting until it goes bad. Replacing that battery is apparently difficult or impossible. Do a search for more info. If the time/date is not important, it may not be a problem. I do plan to use my M6II as long as possible, knowing that I probably cannot repair/replace it when it fails.

The R8 is also travel-friendly sized plus offers the advantages of full frame. A good (and growing) selection of R lenses is available plus most EF glass can be used with an adapter. To maximize the R8's potential, the use of L glass (larger, heavier, more expensive) needs to be considered.

Except for size the R8 beats the M6II for most purposes, especially low light photography. If I should return to a one body solution I would keep the R8 and acquire lenses as needed - but the M6II/11-22 lens would definitely be missed.

Click to expand...

Well although I have been focussed on assembling something as small as possible, I understand that I could couple the R8 with a range of great older lens similar to the monster Nikons I don't want to use anymore, and if in the future I need them, it is good to have them. Aside from the slow aperture, will I be disappointed with the performance of the RF 15-30? It is always a slippery slope- slightly bigger camera, slightly bigger lens, and then suddenly the radical makeover is looking less radical!

Click to expand...

I don't own nor have I used the RF 15-30, so can't comment. I am searching for the best RF wide zoom to replace the EFM 11-22 but haven't arrived at any conclusions yet. Perhaps someone else will chime in.

Have you considered the R10? Smaller and lighter than the R8, much more advanced than the R50.

Lisa Horton said:

Have you considered the R10? Smaller and lighter than the R8, much more advanced than the R50.

Click to expand...

Unless you want extra focal rante in the telephoto region, id say the R8 is a better camera in every regard than the r10, and it's size difference is negligible.

R8 is longer but r10 is deeper so it's a toss up really. It's about 20g wright difference with is unlikeyto be noticeable in real world use.

SHOT IN ROME said:

I do not want to carry my FF Nikon anymore, and with the monster lenses it is just way too big and heavy. I will not carry it without a strong purpose.

I am looking for a new kit for two uses- daytime carry for random street shots, and more careful subtle or extreme night work where I would even carry a monopod if needed. I occasionally print 40 x 60. Dynamic range matters, intelligent tracking/focus etc. do not.

I was very excited about the relative cost and weight of the R50 APS-C with the new super lightweight RF-S 10-18, but after a night of tests I did not think it offered enough of an upgrade from my iPhone 14 Pro shooting large RAW at night. Sure, there was some detail improvement, but not enough, and it did not even handle light blooms much better. But then, in the past the APS-C on a Nikon and a Sony did not satisfy me either.

So I am wondering if the M6 Mark II might be *enough* of a bump beyond the 24 MP APS-C cameras, allowing me to stay small. Canon claims that they improved the sensor for the R7, but that camera is larger and heavier, and the detail may still not be there.

Click to expand...

What lenses are you considering for those crop options? That's an important question to answer, as a lot depends on the lenses.

SHOT IN ROME said:

So the next option is FF. I see that the R8 is quite small and with the RF 16mm

Click to expand...

that one is full frame, but not stabilized

SHOT IN ROME said:

and RF-S 10-18, I could stay very small.

Click to expand...

that one is stabilized, but not full frame

SHOT IN ROME said:

Any comments/suggestions?

I am cross posting to both the M and R forums.

A small sample of legacy work can be found at https://www.cameronmcnall.com/foto

Click to expand...

I would plan for the R8 + 24mm f/1.8 IS stm or 35mm f/1.8 IS stm. That way you have full frame performance and stabilization. The M6II is more compact, but there's no compact lens with both a large aperture and stabilization.

--
R5 & RV
EF & FE

Lisa Horton said:

Have you considered the R10? Smaller and lighter than the R8, much more advanced than the R50.

Click to expand...

Yes, it seems the sensor is the same, so I was shooting for the lightest and smallest. The R50 is the smallest, and is not so rudimentary as the R100. Alas, I think the sensor size just not going to cut it for me. This is why I was wondering if the M6 Mark II bump would be enough to stay small.

SHOT IN ROME said:

Lisa Horton said:

Have you considered the R10? Smaller and lighter than the R8, much more advanced than the R50.

Click to expand...

Yes, it seems the sensor is the same, so I was shooting for the lightest and smallest. The R50 is the smallest, and is not so rudimentary as the R100. Alas, I think the sensor size just not going to cut it

Click to expand...

What's kind of "it" is the "it" here?

Is it about low light performance for moving subjects?

Is it about low light performance for non moving subjects?

Is it about getting a large enough amount of detail? And if yes, what lens is going to give you that, as pixels alone can't do job?

SHOT IN ROME said:

for me. This is why I was wondering if the M6 Mark II bump would be enough to stay small.

Click to expand...

If you're planning for shooting budget crop zooms only, the 32Mp is of little advantage.

If you go for sharper primes the advantage gets bigger, however, on M there are no stabilized M primes. A prime like the Sigma ef-m 16mm f/1.4 is very good, but it's pretty big and heavy, and not stabilized. Compared to the R8 + 24mm f/1.8 IS stm the body is bigger, but the lens is much smaller, while the combo gathers more light for you, because f/1.4 on crop is equivalent to f/2.2 on full frame, and the 24mm is f/1.8, AND because the 24mm gives you stabilization, which the Sigma 16mm does not.

So let's start with the lenses. What kind of fields of view do you need? Are you open to shooting primes? And how important is stabilization to you?

thunder storm said:

SHOT IN ROME said:

I do not want to carry my FF Nikon anymore, and with the monster lenses it is just way too big and heavy. I will not carry it without a strong purpose.

I am looking for a new kit for two uses- daytime carry for random street shots, and more careful subtle or extreme night work where I would even carry a monopod if needed. I occasionally print 40 x 60. Dynamic range matters, intelligent tracking/focus etc. do not.

I was very excited about the relative cost and weight of the R50 APS-C with the new super lightweight RF-S 10-18, but after a night of tests I did not think it offered enough of an upgrade from my iPhone 14 Pro shooting large RAW at night. Sure, there was some detail improvement, but not enough, and it did not even handle light blooms much better. But then, in the past the APS-C on a Nikon and a Sony did not satisfy me either.

So I am wondering if the M6 Mark II might be *enough* of a bump beyond the 24 MP APS-C cameras, allowing me to stay small. Canon claims that they improved the sensor for the R7, but that camera is larger and heavier, and the detail may still not be there.

Click to expand...

What lenses are you considering for those crop options? That's an important question to answer, as a lot depends on the lenses.

thunder storm said:

So the next option is FF. I see that the R8 is quite small and with the RF 16mm

Click to expand...

that one is full frame, but not stabilized

thunder storm said:

and RF-S 10-18, I could stay very small.

Click to expand...

that one is stabilized, but not full frame

thunder storm said:

Any comments/suggestions?

I am cross posting to both the M and R forums.

A small sample of legacy work can be found at https://www.cameronmcnall.com/foto

Click to expand...

I would plan for the R8 + 24mm f/1.8 IS stm or 35mm f/1.8 IS stm. That way you have full frame performance and stabilization. The M6II is more compact, but there's no compact lens with both a large aperture and stabilization.

Click to expand...

Yes, I wrote the incorrect lens, I meant the RF 15-30, which is a perfect range at FF for me.

The RF 16 prime would be even smaller, and is just about right for much of what I want to do.

With lens IS, I might use a monopod at night. Heck, I used to shoot with a tripod and Kodachrome 24 at night. The first time I used a nikkormat with a new 28mm and pressed the bulb, it stayed open forever, and then the shutter closed after what seemed an eternity. Kind of a life-changing event.

thunder storm said:

SHOT IN ROME said:

Lisa Horton said:

Have you considered the R10? Smaller and lighter than the R8, much more advanced than the R50.

Click to expand...

Yes, it seems the sensor is the same, so I was shooting for the lightest and smallest. The R50 is the smallest, and is not so rudimentary as the R100. Alas, I think the sensor size just not going to cut it

Click to expand...

What's kind of "it" is the "it" here?

Is it about low light performance for moving subjects?

Is it about low light performance for non moving subjects?

Is it about getting a large enough amount of detail? And if yes, what lens is going to give you that, as pixels alone can't do job?

thunder storm said:

for me. This is why I was wondering if the M6 Mark II bump would be enough to stay small.

Click to expand...

If you're planning for shooting budget crop zooms only, the 32Mp is of little advantage.

If you go for sharper primes the advantage gets bigger, however, on M there are no stabilized M primes. A prime like the Sigma ef-m 16mm f/1.4 is very good, but it's pretty big and heavy, and not stabilized. Compared to the R8 + 24mm f/1.8 IS stm the body is bigger, but the lens is much smaller, while the combo gathers more light for you, because f/1.4 on crop is equivalent to f/2.2 on full frame, and the 24mm is f/1.8, AND because the 24mm gives you stabilization, which the Sigma 16mm does not.

So let's start with the lenses. What kind of fields of view do you need? Are you open to shooting primes? And how important is stabilization to you?

Click to expand...

I just answered some of this, but to enlarge, I would like a lot of detail, mostly of still scenes, not concerned about motion. I am now living in Rome and want to return to walking around night work like I used to do, also no motion. I like a lot of detail, and not having bright lights blow out. Secondarily, I would like to carry a camera for unforeseen stuff, and i just know that when it gets too big, I will leave it at home. I have invested in the very best lens in the past to gain a stop of light, but now think that I can deal with slow lenses if they can give me the detail and contrast I want while being small. I think that this is inherently the idea of these new RF lens that Canon is bringing out.

SHOT IN ROME said:

thunder storm said:

SHOT IN ROME said:

I do not want to carry my FF Nikon anymore, and with the monster lenses it is just way too big and heavy. I will not carry it without a strong purpose.

I am looking for a new kit for two uses- daytime carry for random street shots, and more careful subtle or extreme night work where I would even carry a monopod if needed. I occasionally print 40 x 60. Dynamic range matters, intelligent tracking/focus etc. do not.

I was very excited about the relative cost and weight of the R50 APS-C with the new super lightweight RF-S 10-18, but after a night of tests I did not think it offered enough of an upgrade from my iPhone 14 Pro shooting large RAW at night. Sure, there was some detail improvement, but not enough, and it did not even handle light blooms much better. But then, in the past the APS-C on a Nikon and a Sony did not satisfy me either.

So I am wondering if the M6 Mark II might be *enough* of a bump beyond the 24 MP APS-C cameras, allowing me to stay small. Canon claims that they improved the sensor for the R7, but that camera is larger and heavier, and the detail may still not be there.

Click to expand...

What lenses are you considering for those crop options? That's an important question to answer, as a lot depends on the lenses.

SHOT IN ROME said:

So the next option is FF. I see that the R8 is quite small and with the RF 16mm

Click to expand...

that one is full frame, but not stabilized

SHOT IN ROME said:

and RF-S 10-18, I could stay very small.

Click to expand...

that one is stabilized, but not full frame

SHOT IN ROME said:

Any comments/suggestions?

I am cross posting to both the M and R forums.

A small sample of legacy work can be found at https://www.cameronmcnall.com/foto

Click to expand...

I would plan for the R8 + 24mm f/1.8 IS stm or 35mm f/1.8 IS stm. That way you have full frame performance and stabilization. The M6II is more compact, but there's no compact lens with both a large aperture and stabilization.

Click to expand...

Yes, I wrote the incorrect lens, I meant the RF 15-30, which is a perfect range at FF for me.

Click to expand...

If you can swing it you might want to consider the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS stm. The 15-30mm is o.k., but not great.

SHOT IN ROME said:

The RF 16 prime would be even smaller, and is just about right for much of what I want to do.

Click to expand...

R8 + 16mm&24mm primes is capable and small. I would pick the primes over the 15-30mm.

SHOT IN ROME said:

With lens IS, I might use a monopod at night. Heck, I used to shoot with a tripod and Kodachrome 24 at night. The first time I used a nikkormat with a new 28mm and pressed the bulb, it stayed open forever, and then the shutter closed after what seemed an eternity. Kind of a life-changing event.

Click to expand...

At the point you need to bring something like a monopod, I would rather bring a tripod. It's only a little bigger and much more effective.

SHOT IN ROME said:

I do not want to carry my FF Nikon anymore, and with the monster lenses it is just way too big and heavy. I will not carry it without a strong purpose.

I am looking for a new kit for two uses- daytime carry for random street shots, and more careful subtle or extreme night work where I would even carry a monopod if needed. I occasionally print 40 x 60. Dynamic range matters, intelligent tracking/focus etc. do not.

I was very excited about the relative cost and weight of the R50 APS-C with the new super lightweight RF-S 10-18, but after a night of tests I did not think it offered enough of an upgrade from my iPhone 14 Pro shooting large RAW at night.

Click to expand...

I have a 14 Pro, although I have never really tried too hard to use it at night. I know that computational photography has improved outputs from phones, but I seriously doubt that a 14 Pro can produce results better than a well-shot and properly processed R50 (or R10) image, especially if using something like DxO. Perhaps if comparing out of camera (no processing) images and viewed on a small (phone) screen), but view a phone's night image on a 27" 4K screen and things usually look a bit lacking.

SHOT IN ROME said:

Sure, there was some detail improvement, but not enough, and it did not even handle light blooms much better. But then, in the past the APS-C on a Nikon and a Sony did not satisfy me either.

Click to expand...

Are you shooting RAW (like your 14 Pro) or relying on out of camera JPEG ?

SHOT IN ROME said:

So I am wondering if the M6 Mark II might be *enough* of a bump beyond the 24 MP APS-C cameras, allowing me to stay small. Canon claims that they improved the sensor for the R7, but that camera is larger and heavier, and the detail may still not be there. So the next option is FF. I see that the R8 is quite small and with the RF 16mm and RF-S 10-18, I could stay very small.

Click to expand...

I have both R10 (same sensor as R50, but lots of other improvements) and R8 and I would argue that in good light and similar or same lenses and settings, most people would struggle to pick the difference with some serious pixel peeping. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the newer Canon Canon APS-C sensors, even the 24Mp ones.

I might suggest that you would really struggle to pick the difference in detail between a R10, R7 or R8 image, all shot with the RF 15-30 (which I also have) - unless the lighting gets quite challenging, in which case the R8 will perform better.

SHOT IN ROME said:

Any comments/suggestions?

Click to expand...

In general, R10 and R8 (and obviously R7) are a fair step up from M6 ii in overall capability, and obviously the RF (and RF-S) lenses have a growing range, especially with third party makers starting to come on board.

To some extent it depends on how important a few things are to you;

• Overall size & weight
• Importance of EVF
• Budget
• Is WA more important than reach ?

SHOT IN ROME said:

I am cross posting to both the M and R forums.

A small sample of legacy work can be found at https://www.cameronmcnall.com/foto

Click to expand...

I wanted a smaller and lighter kit than my previous Canon 6D ii + "monster" (L series) lenses, and M5 + EF-M lenses, so I went with R10, R8, RF15-30, RF 24-105L & RF 100-400. This all fits in a Think Tank Retrospective 10 and weighs about 5.5kg. It gives me options for everything from a FF FoV equivalent of 15mm right up to 640mm. RF 15-30 is my least used lens.

In general, it is worth noting that R8 and R10 are essentially the same size and weight, but depending on which lenses you choose, the lenses dictate the differences. For example, R10 + RF-S 18-150 has a far larger range than R8 + RF 24-105 STM, but it is also smaller and lighter.

If, however, you plan to use the same lens, like RF 15-30 or RF 24 or 35 on whichever camera you choose, then the size and weight will be indistinguishable.

Bear in mind (obviously) that the RF 15-30 mention as being your ideal range is quite different on APS-C or FF - on a FF R8 it is obviously 15-30mm, which is super wide at 15mm and still relatively wide at 30mm, whereas on M6 ii, R10 or R7 it is equivalent to 24mm at wide end, which is reasonably wide, but not UWA, and 48mm at long end, which is a "standard" view.

So the same lens will produce quite different perspectives depending on whether you fit it to APS-C or FF body. Perhaps compare R10 + RF 15-30 with R8 + RF 24-50, or R10 + RF-S 10-18 with R8 + RF 15-30 (in which case R10 would be quite a bit smaller and lighter).

SHOT IN ROME said:

JRET said:

I have both R8 & M6II. Both outperform my iPhone 16 Pro in challenging situations (low light, need for reach, etc.) requiring better glass.

The M6II is a wonderful size for travel. IMHO the M6II paired with either the EFM 11-22 or EFM 32 is amazing. I also use the 18-150 - decent lens but not on the same level as the 11-22/32. Note: the M6II has been discontinued altho good copies may still be available from reputable sources. The M6II has an internal battery that keeps the correct time/date setting until it goes bad. Replacing that battery is apparently difficult or impossible. Do a search for more info. If the time/date is not important, it may not be a problem. I do plan to use my M6II as long as possible, knowing that I probably cannot repair/replace it when it fails.

The R8 is also travel-friendly sized plus offers the advantages of full frame. A good (and growing) selection of R lenses is available plus most EF glass can be used with an adapter. To maximize the R8's potential, the use of L glass (larger, heavier, more expensive) needs to be considered.

Except for size the R8 beats the M6II for most purposes, especially low light photography. If I should return to a one body solution I would keep the R8 and acquire lenses as needed - but the M6II/11-22 lens would definitely be missed.

Click to expand...

Well although I have been focussed on assembling something as small as possible, I understand that I could couple the R8 with a range of great older lens similar to the monster Nikons I don't want to use anymore, and if in the future I need them, it is good to have them. Aside from the slow aperture, will I be disappointed with the performance of the RF 15-30? It is always a slippery slope- slightly bigger camera, slightly bigger lens, and then suddenly the radical makeover is looking less radical!

Click to expand...

You could almost certainly couple the same older lenses to any M or R body, not just R8. If they are APS-C specific lenses, then R FF bodies with automatically go into crop mode (divide the rated Mp by 2.56) which is not ideal.

RF 15-30 is what it is - a budget friendly UWA zoom. It performs perfectly adequately in most situations. It does not pretend to be a professional quality lens - there are two L lenses that fill that gap, but RF 15-30 is relatively inexpensive and quite small and light -= which fits the requirement of "new small kit" better.

winston_smyth said:

Lisa Horton said:

Have you considered the R10? Smaller and lighter than the R8, much more advanced than the R50.

Click to expand...

Unless you want extra focal rante in the telephoto region, id say the R8 is a better camera in every regard than the r10, and it's size difference is negligible.

R8 is longer but r10 is deeper so it's a toss up really. It's about 20g wright difference with is unlikeyto be noticeable in real world use.

Click to expand...

While I would agree that the size and weight differences between R10 and R8 are negligible (I own both), I would not necessarily agree that R8 is a better camera in every regard.

R10 is obviously better for reach, and in those (probably rare) instances where mechanical shutter is preferred, obviously R8 doesn't have one. I also prefer that button and switch layout on R10 - R8 AF button (BBF) is too far right IMO - R10's button falls better for my thumb position. R8 adopts Canons "new" power switch which operates in the opposite direction to every Canon DSLR in the last 20 years.

R8 does have a better sensor, perhaps slightly better AF, deeper buffer and faster frame rate (as long as you use fully electronic shutter - EFCS on R8 is slower than R10).

Overall, I switch seamlessly between them - I have R10 + RF 100-400 and R8 + RF 24-105L f4 permanently in my bag (with RF 15-30 unmounted usually), and just grab whichever one suits the situation best.

SHOT IN ROME said:

Lisa Horton said:

Have you considered the R10? Smaller and lighter than the R8, much more advanced than the R50.

Click to expand...

Yes, it seems the sensor is the same, so I was shooting for the lightest and smallest. The R50 is the smallest, and is not so rudimentary as the R100.

Click to expand...

The primary reason the R10 is bigger than R50 is the grip depth - which is largely insignificant once you fit a lens, even a small one - they will both fit in the same space in a bag.

R10 is a more capable camera than R50, with many of the differences not even mentioned in the spec sheets.

SHOT IN ROME said:

Alas, I think the sensor size just not going to cut it for me.

Click to expand...

IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 24Mp sensor used in R10 & R50. There are certainly better sensors, especially for low light / high ISO, but you would need to explain what is wrong or lacking with these sensors.

SHOT IN ROME said:

This is why I was wondering if the M6 Mark II bump would be enough to stay small.

Click to expand...

For all intents and purposes, the outputs from the 32Mp APS-C sensor and 24Mp APS-C are going to be indistinguishable to most users.