Canon EOS R owners, upgrade plans?

KEG wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

I have EOS M3, M6 and M50, all of them are 24 MP, no camera with 20 MP sensor can be considered an upgrade from any of them, no matter how good it is, the pixels aren't there.

I would remotely reconsider if R6 where around $1000 with lens.

Just on the basis of cost alone Sony is looking better and better everyday.

By this logic your M3 is an upgrade from a 1DX3

Gearheads say the darndest things

For landscapes and portraits, that is a definite yes.

1DX3 has better DR & color depth than your M bodies.

God I hope so, at 6 times the price it better be.

Access to better lenses too.

EOS M cameras are fully compatible with any EF lens ever made

But won't get anywhere near as much out of them as a FF body for landscapes.

If MP is all that matters,

We should of course be shooting medium format

why bother with M mount bodies at all when you can get a 41MP smartphone for a couple hundred dollars?

because the image quality difference between aps-c and fullframe is almost theoritical

It's way more tangible than the difference between 20 and 24 MP. Especially when coupled with the generally better lenses FF can make full use of.

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

I have EOS M3, M6 and M50, all of them are 24 MP, no camera with 20 MP sensor can be considered an upgrade from any of them, no matter how good it is, the pixels aren't there.

I would remotely reconsider if R6 where around $1000 with lens.

Just on the basis of cost alone Sony is looking better and better everyday.

By this logic your M3 is an upgrade from a 1DX3

Gearheads say the darndest things

For landscapes and portraits, that is a definite yes.

1DX3 has better DR & color depth than your M bodies.

God I hope so, at 6 times the price it better be.

Access to better lenses too.

EOS M cameras are fully compatible with any EF lens ever made

But won't get anywhere near as much out of them as a FF body for landscapes.

Which given my decades of experience with both crop and ff I know is fairytale with zero merit in real-life.

If MP is all that matters,

We should of course be shooting medium format

why bother with M mount bodies at all when you can get a 41MP smartphone for a couple hundred dollars?

because the image quality difference between aps-c and fullframe is almost theoritical

It's way more tangible than the difference between 20 and 24 MP. Especially when coupled with the generally better lenses FF can make full use of.

I think I refer again to the decades part.

do yourself a favor, buy M6mk2 and EF-M 32 mm and see which 20 MP camera outperforms that combo

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

As much as I want that R6 by heart, my R is still enough for what I do, except for school sports day but we won't have one this year anyway due to CoVID-19.

I will probably give it another year to let the price settle while keep my eyes on the used market.

I am more interested in the new lenses. Will be investing in lenses first.

KEG wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

I have EOS M3, M6 and M50, all of them are 24 MP, no camera with 20 MP sensor can be considered an upgrade from any of them, no matter how good it is, the pixels aren't there.

I would remotely reconsider if R6 where around $1000 with lens.

Just on the basis of cost alone Sony is looking better and better everyday.

By this logic your M3 is an upgrade from a 1DX3

Gearheads say the darndest things

For landscapes and portraits, that is a definite yes.

1DX3 has better DR & color depth than your M bodies.

God I hope so, at 6 times the price it better be.

Access to better lenses too.

EOS M cameras are fully compatible with any EF lens ever made

But won't get anywhere near as much out of them as a FF body for landscapes.

Which given my decades of experience with both crop and ff I know is fairytale with zero merit in real-life.

I agree with you on landscapes, with two caveats.

You need a tripod more often on smaller sensors.  (I use a tripod most of the time anyway)

You have the best possible selection of ultra wide lenses with FF.   Sure, some people don't even use ultra wide for landscapes, but some of us do.  There is no equivalent to the  TSE 17 for any other format.  There is no equivalent to the EF 11-14 for any other format.  If you don't shoot them, it doesn't matter, but if you like ultra wide, there is no substitute for the great FF ultra wide lenses.

Some are getting closer now.  There is no reason that there couldn't be.  But today FF is king on lens selection.  You have had the Sigma 8-16 for a while.  It has that nasty mustache distortion, though.   Fuji has a good 8-16 now.   Laowa makes a 9mm Zero D prime, but it has a lot of vignetting.   We're getting some "almost as good" things here.

If MP is all that matters,

We should of course be shooting medium format

why bother with M mount bodies at all when you can get a 41MP smartphone for a couple hundred dollars?

because the image quality difference between aps-c and fullframe is almost theoritical

It's way more tangible than the difference between 20 and 24 MP. Especially when coupled with the generally better lenses FF can make full use of.

I think I refer again to the decades part.

do yourself a favor, buy M6mk2 and EF-M 32 mm and see which 20 MP camera outperforms that combo

I would be happy with that sensor.  The 20 MP sensor in question will outperform it in every area that doesn't need the resolution.  In low light without flash, action, portraits, events, and photojournalism, it will slaughter the M sensor.  There are even some landscapes where the resolution is not important, like backlit scenes with a lot of flare or hazy scenes or sunrises on foggy mornings.  There are only so many pictures that get mileage out of the resolution.

To our other discussion, don't know why y'all don't get the same kind of deals we get in the US.   It seems like big price reductions are great for moving tons of older products.  The top tier of canon products are crazy expensive here.  The second or third tier down is dirt cheap, though.

I will keep the R for awhile. I need to start to collect some RF glass first.  Both new cameras sound great but for now the R will serve me for a few years then I can look at upgrading

mhasman wrote:

Dear EOS R owners, please share you thoughts if you are planing to keep R or upgrade with R6/R6. Simple, like

"I am thinking to...

The R's dated now with this new DIGIC X processor... that seemed to be built for the mirrorless needs from the ground up.

the R6 is the perfect new media camera... designed for you tubers with 10bit 422 out and computer friendly 20MP images... the R5 video seems designed for a 2019 mac pro.

The $R has a good 30MP size... curious once the dynamic range test are in two the R will fare with the two new cameras.

I have a 5D Mark III for wedding work. I recently got a Canon RP after selling my 6D. Im definitely a mirrorless fan after trying the RP. I think the R6 will be plenty of camera for my work and my clientele. I will probably sell the 5D mark III and keep the RP.  The RP will probably still be my casual/personal camera for most use. I will probably start converting over to RF lenses, perhaps starting with the RF 35mm F2 and new 85mm F2. These should be fine for me. I don’t prefer shooting with too much depth of field. I’ll keep my tamron 24-70 2.8 G2 and 70-200 2.8 G2 for professional work for a little while until more affordable alternatives are made for those.

KEG wrote:

Which given my decades of experience with both crop and ff I know is fairytale with zero merit in real-life.

What digital FF bodies have you shot with?

If MP is all that matters,

We should of course be shooting medium format

why bother with M mount bodies at all when you can get a 41MP smartphone for a couple hundred dollars?

because the image quality difference between aps-c and fullframe is almost theoritical

It's way more tangible than the difference between 20 and 24 MP. Especially when coupled with the generally better lenses FF can make full use of.

I think I refer again to the decades part.

do yourself a favor, buy M6mk2 and EF-M 32 mm and see which 20 MP camera outperforms that combo

Outperforms by what metrics?

andyus08 wrote:

I'm also a wedding photographer. My 5DIII is going to die soon and I have the R. Honestly, I like the R and I still use all my EF lenses with R-adapter. It works perfectly. The only downsize is only 1 card slot, so I have the backup solution.

I think R6 is perfect for the wedding photography, but for $2500 is kind over the fence to me.

I agree the price is a little high for me as well. Before COVID happened, I would have felt more comfortable with that price. However with my wedding business as is, it’s definitely more of a decision. I don’t anticipate getting much for my 5D mark III even though it’s in great shape with a lower shutter count.

sportyaccordy wrote:

KEG wrote:

Which given my decades of experience with both crop and ff I know is fairytale with zero merit in real-life.

What digital FF bodies have you shot with?

EOS 5D.   Found no compelling reason to upgrade to the others.

If MP is all that matters,

We should of course be shooting medium format

why bother with M mount bodies at all when you can get a 41MP smartphone for a couple hundred dollars?

because the image quality difference between aps-c and fullframe is almost theoritical

It's way more tangible than the difference between 20 and 24 MP. Especially when coupled with the generally better lenses FF can make full use of.

I think I refer again to the decades part.

do yourself a favor, buy M6mk2 and EF-M 32 mm and see which 20 MP camera outperforms that combo

Outperforms by what metrics?

Printsize for one, cropability is another, I have lenses which have excellent pixel level quality, some of aren’t available in RF-mount.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

mhasman wrote:

Dear EOS R owners, please share you thoughts if you are planing to keep R or upgrade with R6/R6. Simple, like

"I am thinking to...

If the price is right and the R6 gets good reviews.

JoWinter wrote:

Rule556 wrote:

As an enthusiast, the R is doing everything I need for now. It's so far ahead of my old 6D, that I don't have to even think about upgrading for at least two-to-three years.

I'll just sit and save for the R5 MKII.

My R is only 18 months old. I'm perfectly happy and do not see the need to replace it. i'd rather use The funds I have for RF lenses that suit my shooting needs. The RF 85 f/2 is tempting. Perhaps the 70-200 f/4 if the image quality is there. Next year, when the price of the R5 has come done, I might go for it. Or perhaps there will be an update to the R.

I feel the same way.