I simply want to eliminate choices. Thinking of having just the one camera and not bother with deciding which one to take.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
CANON R6III RELEASE UPDATE
- Thread starter R6iiowner
- Start date
If it is 30mp, I might bite. Hopefully, a symmetric AF filter unlike the current R6II.
I have not experienced problems with my EF lenses and the R.
To respond to another post: the RF 24-105/4 L is great.
Its c50, that one comes first
I’ve had that lens since 2019. I love it.
I did exactly that. Sold off everything and just kept the R6 MKII and the 24-240mm lens.
I sold my R7. I currently only have the R6II and having only one body is kinda refreshing.
Also sold all my EF gear. Only have the R6II, RF 24-105 F4, 100-500 and 1.4. The similar to EF gear that I used 90% of the time.
Can you elaborate a bit more, which lenses would I be jealous of?The EF mark II was bigger and heavier. The original (two decades ago) was just a smidgen lighter, but not enough that anyone would notice. I owned that for about ten years. The RF version is much better, and pretty clearly the best 24-105 F4 currently available
I think Canon has the overall most compelling lens lineup of all the manufacturers at the moment. I know that if I were using a different mount, I'd be looking jealously at many of the RF lenses and wondering why my mount doesn't have those.its' ok, but its not a substitute for a 24-70 2.8 zoom, if the 24-70 2.8 was the same size as the 24-105, then its ok but it's not.
cheap kit lens, there's so many for sale used says everything, slow/no wr etc etc, average lens.
even cheaper kit lens, range very short, very slow for zoom range, boring
too big/large, heavy
ok for what it is, I like it but it's 16-28 range limits its use/practicality
ok, good uwa landscape option
seriously?
just a couple actually, coming in around 600 gr would be nice for a start to match the body size, 16-35 2.8, <600gr, 24-70 2.8 <700gr and the matching 70-200z 2.8 <1.1kg
their base is not anything, its all over the place, the core 16-35/24-70 2.8 should be compact enough to match the bodies, they don't, the 70-200 2.8z is ok, and the f4 zooms too, but they are limited use indoor.
I know, I have it, but it needs to be 24mm, my only options are switch lenses, pain, or second body, it's getting excessively heavy now, or add the RF 24-70 2.8, which is very very large/heavy for the rf body imo.
I think Canon need to address the excessive weight of RF mount lenses and stop releasing more and more body iterations, 3x r6 bodies releases in 5 years? Original R6 might have been wise to be 24mp and mkii this new 30mp model, 5 years later?
I don't get it why are we still complaining about the weight of the gear, as professionals. That's the price we pay for the quality we need for the jobs.
The 5Div + ef 24-70mm f2.8 ii was a tad heavier than the current r5ii + rf 24-70mm f2.8, and it's fully packed with technology we weren't dreaming a decade ago.
Price wise, I've asked Gemini Ai to calculate (I don't have the brain to do it myself), considering launch prices and inflation and apparently the mirrorless alternative is about 1000 dollars cheaper.
As for the R6iii, I do hope for the 30mpix sensor, better AF, flash syncing focus stacking and the back screen flexibility screen will be very welcomed.
Price wise, the r6 and r6ii were in the $2400 range but the new R6iii will see a small increase in price, not just from the new tariffs. Maybe a 15ish% increase.
The 5Div + ef 24-70mm f2.8 ii was a tad heavier than the current r5ii + rf 24-70mm f2.8, and it's fully packed with technology we weren't dreaming a decade ago.
Price wise, I've asked Gemini Ai to calculate (I don't have the brain to do it myself), considering launch prices and inflation and apparently the mirrorless alternative is about 1000 dollars cheaper.
As for the R6iii, I do hope for the 30mpix sensor, better AF, flash syncing focus stacking and the back screen flexibility screen will be very welcomed.
Price wise, the r6 and r6ii were in the $2400 range but the new R6iii will see a small increase in price, not just from the new tariffs. Maybe a 15ish% increase.
J
jjbinx
Guest
Why is the R6-series update on a shorter cycle than the R5 ?
BirdShooter7
Forum Pro
Maybe Canon sees it as an easy entry point into the system so they want to keep that line fresh to hook new customers into the FF RF system. I’d imagine that is also why they created the R8.
Those are my thoughts. Besides more people can afford the R6 than the R5.
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,315
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
RF 10-20mm f/4 for a start. Superb lens and tiny compared with the EF 11-24mm. The RF 28mm f/2.8 isn't roo big or heavy either and the RF 100-400mm gets used a lot more than I thought it would be just because of the R8's low light performance, the lens' portability and the fact that it will go into a big jacket pocket. Sneer all you like about the 16mm but it's a nice lens to have along with you on the off-chance you need an ultra-wide and didn't bring one because of the bulk and weight. Just make sure you use any of them with a RAW converter with decent provision for them.Can you elaborate a bit more, which lenses would I be jealous of?The EF mark II was bigger and heavier. The original (two decades ago) was just a smidgen lighter, but not enough that anyone would notice. I owned that for about ten years. The RF version is much better, and pretty clearly the best 24-105 F4 currently available
I think Canon has the overall most compelling lens lineup of all the manufacturers at the moment. I know that if I were using a different mount, I'd be looking jealously at many of the RF lenses and wondering why my mount doesn't have those.its' ok, but its not a substitute for a 24-70 2.8 zoom, if the 24-70 2.8 was the same size as the 24-105, then its ok but it's not.
cheap kit lens, there's so many for sale used says everything, slow/no wr etc etc, average lens.
even cheaper kit lens, range very short, very slow for zoom range, boring
too big/large, heavy
ok for what it is, I like it but it's 16-28 range limits its use/practicality
ok
seriously?
just a couple actually, coming in around 600 gr would be nice for a start to match the body size, 16-35 2.8, <600gr, 24-70 2.8 <700gr and the matching 70-200z 2.8 <1.1kg
their base is not anything, its all over the place, the core 16-35/24-70 2.8 should be compact enough to match the bodies, they don't, the 70-200 2.8z is ok, and the f4 zooms too, but they are limited use indoor.
I know, I have it, but it needs to be 24mm, my only options are switch lenses, pain, or second body, it's getting excessively heavy now, or add the RF 24-70 2.8, which is very very large/heavy for the rf body imo.
I think Canon need to address the excessive weight of RF mount lenses and stop releasing more and more body iterations, 3x r6 bodies releases in 5 years? Original R6 might have been wise to be 24mp and mkii this new 30mp model, 5 years later?
Last edited:
ok, interesting, a nice lens for sure, but its very niche, a lot of people won't need/buy this lens, but it is a unique lens, agreed.RF 10-20mm f/4 for a start. Superb lens and tiny compared with the EF 11-24mm.Can you elaborate a bit more, which lenses would I be jealous of?The EF mark II was bigger and heavier. The original (two decades ago) was just a smidgen lighter, but not enough that anyone would notice. I owned that for about ten years. The RF version is much better, and pretty clearly the best 24-105 F4 currently available
I think Canon has the overall most compelling lens lineup of all the manufacturers at the moment. I know that if I were using a different mount, I'd be looking jealously at many of the RF lenses and wondering why my mount doesn't have those.its' ok, but its not a substitute for a 24-70 2.8 zoom, if the 24-70 2.8 was the same size as the 24-105, then its ok but it's not.
cheap kit lens, there's so many for sale used says everything, slow/no wr etc etc, average lens.
even cheaper kit lens, range very short, very slow for zoom range, boring
too big/large, heavy
ok for what it is, I like it but it's 16-28 range limits its use/practicality
ok
seriously?
just a couple actually, coming in around 600 gr would be nice for a start to match the body size, 16-35 2.8, <600gr, 24-70 2.8 <700gr and the matching 70-200z 2.8 <1.1kg
their base is not anything, its all over the place, the core 16-35/24-70 2.8 should be compact enough to match the bodies, they don't, the 70-200 2.8z is ok, and the f4 zooms too, but they are limited use indoor.
I know, I have it, but it needs to be 24mm, my only options are switch lenses, pain, or second body, it's getting excessively heavy now, or add the RF 24-70 2.8, which is very very large/heavy for the rf body imo.
I think Canon need to address the excessive weight of RF mount lenses and stop releasing more and more body iterations, 3x r6 bodies releases in 5 years? Original R6 might have been wise to be 24mp and mkii this new 30mp model, 5 years later?
it falls down on so many levels though, no wr, not even a seal for dust/moisture, and the af motor, ok, its ok for what it is.
I wouldn't personally buy either of those lenses again, I'm not sneering I just don't feel as if that's the sort of lens I should be putting on a £4.5k camera body, sorry.
This is the real problem for me, Canon has produced a pretty nice pair of lightweight 2.8 lenses in the 16-28-70, the 16-28 has to be preferable to the 16mm prime anyway, and like wise the 28-70 is easily a better purchase than the 28mm 2.8 prime too. The gap is currently a 70-300 4-5.6 with reasonable close focus, and no I don't want a 100mm start and/or a 200 finish, something smallish/portable with some tele, is that so difficult? The 24-240 is an ok lens to be fair, but its being stretched at 240mm and it's fairly slow throughout anyway and 24mm is there only for the sake of saying its 24mm wide, but its ok, its af motor could be faster and again it lacks any sort of weather sealing, for a travel zoom again, its a miss from Canon on many levels that could have been easily corrected from the start.
I think Canon are just not doing the basics well for FF, its hardly like we need them to produce incredible lenses, just modern day classics with wr and decent modern af motors. The 85f2 suffers the same fate, great optically but no wr and an af motor on the R5ii that cannot keep up and worst of all its af motor gets very loud when pushed, almost like a pumping sound action. I really like the R5ii, I see little to no point in an R6III and for what the difference in cost will be, just buy the R5ii. The problem for me right now is the lens patch is missing, I thought I'd cope with the 28-70 but the lack of 24 is infuriating and I don't really want a 24-105 f4, so my options currently are non-existent if I'm being honest for a work horse light 24-70 2.8 lens and travel 70-300 4-5.6 tele.
Feels quite natural to me. Tech advances at its own rate over time. It's more palatable to sell a lower price point item more frequently with smaller improvements, but it takes a bigger leap in offering to demand a higher price point. It's just how market works in general
R2D2
Forum Pro
Release dates are more in response to market forces (ie competition). I'm quite happy with this shorter than expected cycle. :-D
R2
--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries
Last edited:
Just a hobbyist here, or maybe not even that, I was just looking for the best camera/lens combo for vacation pics. Replaced the aging 7D to pick up the latest tech (mirrorless, awesome autofocus, bluetooth to the phone, etc). Brought the new R6II/24-105 F4 L on vacation in a lowepro sling bag, but found the combo heavier than the 7D with EF-S 15-85mm. I also use pop-up flash for fill when taking outdoor portraits, so I brought a long my 270EX II, but I found it too cumbersome to keep attaching/detaching every time I took it out of the sling.
So I ended up trading in the 7D and a bunch of lenses for an R10 and love it. Similar enough to the R6II, but lighter. But as someone mentioned, the lack of a good RF-S lens was now a problem. I bought the Canon EF EOS R mount adapter and mounted my EF-S 15-85mm which is very sharp and has the focal length I need, but the length of the barrel with the mount adapter puts a nasty shadow on the bottom of the image when I use the pop-up flash.
I couldn't find any RF-S equivalents that had the same high image quality, so I ended up buying a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 DC DN even though it lacks IS. It doesn't throw a shadow when I use the pop-up flash and is very light. I don't miss the lack of IS in the R10 body or lens cause most of my shots are taken at shutter speeds of 1/60th or faster.
Not interested in an R6III.
So I ended up trading in the 7D and a bunch of lenses for an R10 and love it. Similar enough to the R6II, but lighter. But as someone mentioned, the lack of a good RF-S lens was now a problem. I bought the Canon EF EOS R mount adapter and mounted my EF-S 15-85mm which is very sharp and has the focal length I need, but the length of the barrel with the mount adapter puts a nasty shadow on the bottom of the image when I use the pop-up flash.
I couldn't find any RF-S equivalents that had the same high image quality, so I ended up buying a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 DC DN even though it lacks IS. It doesn't throw a shadow when I use the pop-up flash and is very light. I don't miss the lack of IS in the R10 body or lens cause most of my shots are taken at shutter speeds of 1/60th or faster.
Not interested in an R6III.
R2D2
Forum Pro
Yes, an R10 sounds much more in line with your preferences.
And a great lens solution for you!
Our needs are definitely different! FF is the most suitable for what I do, so the R6iii is a no-brainer for me. And I might even spring for an R7ii if performance comes close to my R5ii (for birding). Unfortunately the R7 (OG) didn't work out for that and I sold it.
But enjoy that R10. I've recommended it to quite a few shooters. It's a super value!
R2
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum