From 6D to RP? (R?)

Hello,

Now the RP is in a very good price so I was considering a change of my still good, old 6D. The main reasons are: it's lighter, better AF and video that I do occasionally and focus stacking - doing lot of macro with my 100 2.8 (non-L)

I have some doubts:

- the viewfinder, I'm simply used to that from dslr, I have seen few of mirrorless, and thought Fuji X-T3 has a one that is ok, but I guess RP is not in the same league

- dynamic range - what I already read, I'm not gaining here, which is a pity after those years

- high iso noise - I'm often doing some fire-camp sessions, using ISO 6400

- generally ergonomics: I'm not sure how I also survive without the top screen..

- battery life

I'd get the set probably with native 24-105 L and 35 1.8 (to replace my Sigma 35 1.4, making set really light). Still keeping 16-35/4 via adapter.

Many of the ticks here would be probably solved by R (not RP), but that is more expensive and I don't know why... has not the focus stacking on board. R5/R6 looks ideal on paper, but R6 is 2.5x more expensive that RP and 1.5 than R.

From your experience, I guess many of you have switched from 6D or 5D II/III to those - do you have some comments?

Thanks!

I'll give you my point of view as an RP owner.

christ0f wrote:

Hello,

Now the RP is in a very good price so I was considering a change of my still good, old 6D. The main reasons are: it's lighter, better AF and video that I do occasionally and focus stacking - doing lot of macro with my 100 2.8 (non-L)

I've played a bit with focus bracketing on RP and it works great. Canon DPP does a great job stacking the images too, no need for third party software unless you do very serious or professional jobs. See this thread for a small discussion about it and some sample images:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4531217

I have some doubts:

- the viewfinder, I'm simply used to that from dslr, I have seen few of mirrorless, and thought Fuji X-T3 has a one that is ok, but I guess RP is not in the same league

Coming from a DSLR I was also fearing the EVF. Actually I had tested some Sony APSCs (I think 6400) and didn't like it at all. However I've been gladly surprised by RP's EVF. Although not the best in market I had no issues adapting to it almost instantly.

- dynamic range - what I already read, I'm not gaining here, which is a pity after those years

Here RP is not great, it has the D6 mark II sensor. As far as i know it's better than D6 but not by much.

- high iso noise - I'm often doing some fire-camp sessions, using ISO 6400

I consider RP good up to 12800 and acceptable (if the alternative is not taking the picture) up to 40000

- generally ergonomics: I'm not sure how I also survive without the top screen..

Ergonomics are great. Light but with good grip. No need for top screen when all the info you need can be shown in the EVF

- battery life

Officially 250 pictures. My experience:
- The first day (I was constantly changing and checking everything) I did less than 150
- The following days I'm doing easily more than 250, probably in the range 300-400

Anyway it's a good idea to have spares for serious sessions or for traveling.

I'd get the set probably with native 24-105 L and 35 1.8 (to replace my Sigma 35 1.4, making set really light). Still keeping 16-35/4 via adapter.

Many of the ticks here would be probably solved by R (not RP), but that is more expensive and I don't know why... has not the focus stacking on board. R5/R6 looks ideal on paper, but R6 is 2.5x more expensive that RP and 1.5 than R.

From your experience, I guess many of you have switched from 6D or 5D II/III to those - do you have some comments?

Sorry I'm not coming from any of those. Actually, coming from a quite old APSC DSLR I may appreciate RP more than the average owner. But anyway hope it helps a bit.

christ0f wrote:

Hello,

Now the RP is in a very good price so I was considering a change of my still good, old 6D. The main reasons are: it's lighter, better AF and video that I do occasionally and focus stacking - doing lot of macro with my 100 2.8 (non-L)

I have some doubts:

- the viewfinder, I'm simply used to that from dslr, I have seen few of mirrorless, and thought Fuji X-T3 has a one that is ok, but I guess RP is not in the same league

- dynamic range - what I already read, I'm not gaining here, which is a pity after those years

- high iso noise - I'm often doing some fire-camp sessions, using ISO 6400

- generally ergonomics: I'm not sure how I also survive without the top screen..

- battery life

I'd get the set probably with native 24-105 L and 35 1.8 (to replace my Sigma 35 1.4, making set really light). Still keeping 16-35/4 via adapter.

Many of the ticks here would be probably solved by R (not RP), but that is more expensive and I don't know why... has not the focus stacking on board. R5/R6 looks ideal on paper, but R6 is 2.5x more expensive that RP and 1.5 than R.

From your experience, I guess many of you have switched from 6D or 5D II/III to those - do you have some comments?

Thanks!

Yeah, most of your gripes are solved in the R.  So, I would personally probably go for that if you could   That said, I am not an RP user.  I sort of went from the 6d to the R, but the Sony A7iii was in between the two.  The R improved on the 6d in every way except battery life pretty much.  It’s a great camera, and while it’s more expensive than the RP, it is also a great value right now because it’s price has dropped so much.

christ0f wrote:

Hello,

Now the RP is in a very good price so I was considering a change of my still good, old 6D. The main reasons are: it's lighter, better AF and video that I do occasionally and focus stacking - doing lot of macro with my 100 2.8 (non-L)

The Focus stacking works well with a tripod.  I've had both good and bad results stacking images from the R-cameras.  But other members here have done well with it.  From memory, the EOS RP offers Focus Stacking but not the EOS R.  The feature is also on the R6.

I have some doubts:

- the viewfinder, I'm simply used to that from dslr, I have seen few of mirrorless, and thought Fuji X-T3 has a one that is ok, but I guess RP is not in the same league

The viewfinder on the RP is electronic and it's actually quite useful and I believe you get 100% scene coverage with it. The EOS R viewfinder is easy and enjoyable to use.  The EOS R6 viewfinder seems similar to using an Optical Viewfinder to me.  I sometimes forget until I notice all the icons floating about when looking through it.

- dynamic range - what I already read, I'm not gaining here, which is a pity after those years

Digital Cameras have been taking wonderful pictures for over two decades.  Early models in the late 90s and early 2000s had poor DR.  At first, people complained about the megapixels and then it was the Dynamic Range.  Modern digital mirrorless cameras are capable of excellent Dynamic Range.  We've reached and surpassed what has been before.  And every single year, folks keep expecting DR to increase.  And if there's a minor improvement they cheer and if there's no increase they lament.

- high iso noise - I'm often doing some fire-camp sessions, using ISO 6400

The R cameras are quite decent with noise.  The most recent models (R5/R6) offer a slight improvement over prior models but that's to be expected.

- generally ergonomics: I'm not sure how I also survive without the top screen..

You'll love it.  And that top-screen can be rather fragile if you're rough with your gear.  I certainly don't miss it on the R6 or on my wife's RP.

- battery life

Battery life is good.   It takes a dip with the new R5 & R6 which use more power and come with a new battery type that is kind of backwards compatible.  I think you'll find that the CIPA ratings for battery life are very modest on the R cameras.

I'd get the set probably with native 24-105 L and 35 1.8 (to replace my Sigma 35 1.4, making set really light). Still keeping 16-35/4 via adapter.

Those would be my first two choices for lenses for any new R-camera user.  These two lenses are excellent value and offer VERY good performance.

Many of the ticks here would be probably solved by R (not RP), but that is more expensive and I don't know why... has not the focus stacking on board. R5/R6 looks ideal on paper, but R6 is 2.5x more expensive that RP and 1.5 than R.

Advantages of the R would include sensor resolution, DR and the protective shutter curtain to prevent the sensor from being exposed during lens changes.  I feel that the R is more robustly built than the RP and that the R6 is tougher again.  The trick here will be the choose the right camera for you at this time.
.
The R6 is an excellent camera but I personally feel that it's overpriced.  That said, it's still worth the money if your budget allows it.

From your experience, I guess many of you have switched from 6D or 5D II/III to those - do you have some comments?

I've come from the 6D and 5D III and bought an RP for my wife, then an Ra for myself for Astrophotography - followed by an R6 so that I could use the RF lenses myself.  I was ready to buy an RP for my own use if the newest announcements were not ambitious enough.  Though the R6 met my expectations, I still find the price to be a steep in this day an age. 
.
If or when you buy an EOS RP, you'll find it is very similar to the results from your EOS 6D.  Oddly enough, I can say the same about the R6.  But with the R6, it feels like you're handling the old 6D.  The EOS R feels like a more advanced camera (design wise) than the RP when holding it.  But the RP is at a good price now and it does offer an excellent entry point for anyone wanting to enter the Full Frame mirrorless range.  I'd probably suggest the Grip-Extender for the RP because (1) it just looks good and (2) because it's an affordable accessory that will increase your grip on the camera whilst still allowing access to the battery etc.
.
If you find an EOS R at a good price (which it ought to be selling at these days), it's going to offer you slightly more with performance and features.  It also looks quite nice. The optional battery grip is overpriced and unnecessary but it's available.
.
I feel that all future R cameras from Canon will become more expensive.  That's partially the consequence of the impact of smartphones on camera sales.  If you buy an RP, any RF lenses (and EF lenses) can be used on future R models if you decide to buy a different camera in future.  The pictures from your RP will be similar to those from your EOS 6D but the really big difference is that you get to use Live View in a way that was impossible on the 6D.  I can remember trying to focus on a subject with the 6D and I had to use Manual Focus if I used an Extender.  That's no longer an issue with the R cameras.  And with the EOS R (not the RP), the larger sensor resolution means you'll get a little less noise or grain in your images.  Canon has suggested that this is due to the noise being averaged out over a larger number of pixels.  There's a LOT of customization available on any of the R cameras and you may never need or use all the features.  But if your EOS 6D is aging and you need something to offer Full Frame in Mirrorless, then it's worth the jump.

You'll love the R. Better sensor, more resolution, closed shutter for lens swap, great eye tracking, great EVF, etc. Finally was able to score an 85mm f2 IS macro, and that is such a good pairing.

For me, the R is good enough value that I can't justify the R5 (and I'm not ready for the jump in file size, or the lens quality that 45mpix requires).

I came from a 6D, and am very satisfied with the R. It rocks.

Last week, I was in San Diego and walked down to the beach in the early morning. This is the jpg straight out of camera (I shoot raw+jpg).

All of the other responses provide sufficient info so mine is mostly redundant. I switched from the 6D when the R became available and have not looked back. It is a great camera; I have many good shots of all types of subjects (BIF to flower close-ups, most with EF lenses). Personally, I think it got a bad rap when it came out but it has served my needs and uses wonderfully. The sensor compared to the 6D's is excellent for close crops. As it turned out, I was able to get a R5; unfortunately I have been ill and not able to use it much yet. I will likely sell my R, sadly, since it will be redundant to my R5. The 5's bird/animal focus function, IBIS and larger sensor tipped me to it; being 75 years old, I am guessing this will be my "last" camera as well as my wife's  resistance to my fall-back argument that newer is better. I don't do video and can't afford, at the moment a cf express card so some of the 5's features, at the moment, are lost on me. In any event the R5 is really a luxury for me; otherwise I would have run the first R into the ground.

if you want to do alot of macro or even some landscapes , imo focus stacking is too fun , i chose RP over R because it had it.

christ0f wrote:

Hello,

I upgraded to the R from the 6D, which I still have as a second camera. I have a couple of observations that I haven't seen above.

Now the RP is in a very good price so I was considering a change of my still good, old 6D. The main reasons are: it's lighter, better AF and video that I do occasionally and focus stacking - doing lot of macro with my 100 2.8 (non-L)

I have some doubts:

- the viewfinder, I'm simply used to that from dslr, I have seen few of mirrorless, and thought Fuji X-T3 has a one that is ok, but I guess RP is not in the same league

The OVF of the 6D is still much nicer to look through on a nice day.

In low light, the EVF is like a night vision scope with perfect color. You can actually see things that are too dark for me to see with the naked eye.

The EVF keeps the sun from blinding your shooting eye, when you want to take a backlit picture with the sun in it.

EXPOSURE PREVIEW is exceptionally cool. You can see a very good approximation of the final image in the viewfinder before you press the shutter button. As you adjust the exposure, you see the change in the image in the viewfinder. As you move the camera around, you see the way the different light and different relative direction of the light affects the exposure in real time, so there are no more backlit shots fooling the camera into under exposing the subject and no more having to remember to change the settings every time you point the camera at a different part of the room.  Exposure preview has eliminated probably 90% of my exposure mistakes.

- dynamic range - what I already read, I'm not gaining here, which is a pity after those years

The R is better for dynamic range than the RP, and maybe even the R6, because of Dual Pixel RAW, which adds a full stop to the high end of the exposure. You can't use Dual Pixel RAW with processing intensive functions, like eye AF, silent shutter, high speed continuous shooting, and others, because writing the Dual Pixel RAW file takes so much processing power.

- high iso noise - I'm often doing some fire-camp sessions, using ISO 6400

- generally ergonomics: I'm not sure how I also survive without the top screen..

- battery life

I'd get the set probably with native 24-105 L and 35 1.8 (to replace my Sigma 35 1.4, making set really light). Still keeping 16-35/4 via adapter.

Many of the ticks here would be probably solved by R (not RP), but that is more expensive and I don't know why... has not the focus stacking on board. R5/R6 looks ideal on paper, but R6 is 2.5x more expensive that RP and 1.5 than R.

From your experience, I guess many of you have switched from 6D or 5D II/III to those - do you have some comments?

Thanks!

The focusing advantage is huge, particularly in low light and with fast lenses. With slower lenses in bright light, there is less of an advantage. You still have almost the entire frame to place the focus point, but that center point on the 6D does great in bright light or with a flash that has focus assist. Exposure preview is totally useless with flash. In bright even light or with flash, you might still prefer your 6D.

My next camera purchase will be an RP to replace my 6D as my second camera. I want it for the focus stacking and for a smaller travel camera.

The vast majority of the advantages of the R5 and R6 are for action and wildlife shooting. I like shooting action and wildlife, but I don't get to do it often, so they are not worth the upgrade to me. IBIS is a big advantage to some, particularly those who use vintage and manual lenses a lot, but most of my lenses are stabilized, and I often use the ultimate stabilization device, a heavy tripod.

jwilliams wrote:

christ0f wrote:

Hello,

Now the RP is in a very good price so I was considering a change of my still good, old 6D. The main reasons are: it's lighter, better AF and video that I do occasionally and focus stacking - doing lot of macro with my 100 2.8 (non-L)

I have some doubts:

- the viewfinder, I'm simply used to that from dslr, I have seen few of mirrorless, and thought Fuji X-T3 has a one that is ok, but I guess RP is not in the same league

- dynamic range - what I already read, I'm not gaining here, which is a pity after those years

- high iso noise - I'm often doing some fire-camp sessions, using ISO 6400

- generally ergonomics: I'm not sure how I also survive without the top screen..

- battery life

I'd get the set probably with native 24-105 L and 35 1.8 (to replace my Sigma 35 1.4, making set really light). Still keeping 16-35/4 via adapter.

Many of the ticks here would be probably solved by R (not RP), but that is more expensive and I don't know why... has not the focus stacking on board. R5/R6 looks ideal on paper, but R6 is 2.5x more expensive that RP and 1.5 than R.

From your experience, I guess many of you have switched from 6D or 5D II/III to those - do you have some comments?

Thanks!

Quit worrying. I went from a 6D to an R and RP and would not trade either of them to

whats the defiance in AF between the R and RP?

get my 6D back.

EVF on RP is good. On the R it is great. I'd take either over an OVF in most usage.

RP is similar IQ with a bit more resolution compared to the 6D. R is a bit more resolution and better DR. Both have better high ISO.

Handling on the RP is great for its size. Smaller and lighter but competent is how I'd describe it. Not the best for huge lenses but it still handles decently with my 2lb 50 1.2 on it. The R is a superb handling camera, even with large heavy lenses.

Don't worry about the top LCD panel as it really isn't necessary.

If you can stretch the budget it sounds like the R might be a better upgrade, but I'd still take my RP over a 6D any day.

AF on the R/RP is miles ahead of anything the 6D is capable of.

The RF 24-105 4L IS is a great all around lens. The 16-35 4L IS works fine on either with the adapter, but of course handles better on the R.

R6 appear to be one of the best all around general usage FF cameras out there, but pricing is a bit high.

If I was starting over right now I'd probably buy an RP for a light easy to carry camera and then wait until the R6 becomes more affordable to add a more well rounded camera to my setup. The R basically splits the difference between those 2.

The R is a good bargain if wanting an all around good camera at a very good price.

I took a look at your gallery, and those spectacular mountains have a very wide dynamic range. IMHO, the EOS R is going to return more value. I really like the 30mpix size. I would also recommend considering the RF 85 f2 IS lens. Having IS is very helpful, with a RF extension tube (Fotodiox seems to get the most recommendations, and it's what I've had on back order). W/an RF 85 f2 and extension tube, you can sell off your 100mm macro, to offset the cost.

Regarding focus stacking software, there are other options: https://chasingheartbeats.com/open-source-focus-stacking-software/ (and there is EnFuse and Hugin, as well).

Personally, I use Zerene Stacker (but, that's an extra cost).

I upgraded from 6D to R here very recently (1 month ago) and love it! I love that the R handles low light (high ISO) a lot better than my 6D did, focus is much faster and hits where I want it too more often, and the EVF feels like I came from the stone age into the 21st century.  I actually am planning on selling my 6D to a friend of mine who wants to upgrade from his 60D to something full frame for the better ISO control, which I understand. I love my R, and as much as I would have loved an R5, I couldn't justify the price, as I just shoot as a hobby. Also, having 30mp allows me to crop in a lot more than I could with my 6D which makes me happy, especially since I tend to shoot a lot on my 24mm f1.4L. The ONLY downside is the battery life, I got about 350-400 shots on the new LP-E6N that came with the EOS R, but my third-party, chinese made LP-E6's that I never had issues with on my 6D, do not last nearly as long. I'd say more like 250 shots. Luckily, I have 5 of them as my g/f shoots on a 7Dii, so I just keep a charged one in my pocket when I walk around shooting.

I'd recommend upgrading to either an RP or R, as for which, I can't speak on the RP, but I can recommend the R all day long as an upgrade. Also note, I loved my top screen and didn't want to lose it, and the R6 was way too expensive for still 20mp, as I do enjoy cropping (the fun of shooting on all primes lol)

Kumsa wrote:

I took a look at your gallery, and those spectacular mountains have a very wide dynamic range. IMHO, the EOS R is going to return more value. I really like the 30mpix size. I would also recommend considering the RF 85 f2 IS lens. Having IS is very helpful, with a RF extension tube (Fotodiox seems to get the most recommendations, and it's what I've had on back order). W/an RF 85 f2 and extension tube, you can sell off your 100mm macro, to offset the cost.

Regarding focus stacking software, there are other options: https://chasingheartbeats.com/open-source-focus-stacking-software/ (and there is EnFuse and Hugin, as well).

Personally, I use Zerene Stacker (but, that's an extra cost).

It’s not about focus stacking software after the fact. The RP can be set up on a tripod and fire off a bunch of shots gradually moving the focus place through the the scene automatically in a matter of seconds.

The negative is that this is full electronic shutter only, which leads to some banding. But that is mostly evened out once the images are stacked in post.

To the OP - the focus stacking is pretty awesome. It really boils down to overall image quality and functionality vs focus stacking and cost.  Take cost out of the picture and it’s focus stacking and light weight vs everything else. And I think the R is still lighter than the 6D.

So - cost no object, how much focus stacking do you do and how much do you want to control the process vs having it fun and affordable?

Love the RP.  Cost no object, I’d get an R and cross my fingers for a firmware update to bring me focus stacking. 😁

JustUs7 - yep, you're right, of course. I raced to the processing of the stacking, and not the creation of the images.

Question: what's your experience with manual focus to capture stacked images ? For nature/wildlife images, I have find the focus peaking sufficient in setting multiple focus points. It's not as fast as a built-in feature. For macro images, where a lot of images are frequently needed, the built-in capability would be great.

Kumsa wrote:

JustUs7 - yep, you're right, of course. I raced to the processing of the stacking, and not the creation of the images.

Question: what's your experience with manual focus to capture stacked images ? For nature/wildlife images, I have find the focus peaking sufficient in setting multiple focus points. It's not as fast as a built-in feature. For macro images, where a lot of images are frequently needed, the built-in capability would be great.

If I understand you correctly. For a landscape scene. Lock in on a tripod. Then, using manual focus, turn the focus ring and watch the focus peaking highlight the focus plane, taking manual captures (presumably with a trigger) as you advance the plane through the scene?  
Focus peaking is a great feature of mirrorless.  Never thought to us it that way but I might have to now!  Hoping for Canadian Rockies or Canyonlands (if the border is still closed) this summer.

Might be a little challenging to avoid movement and get precise spacing for razor thin focus planes when doing macro though.

Good choice.  Good shots.

christ0f wrote:

- I had to sell the Sigma 35 1.4 to fund the body and took RF 50 1.8, but it is clearly not that good as the Sigma

The RF 50 f/1.8 is a much nicer lens than the treatment it received in being put down as Canon's bottom of the barrel offering.

For those who hesitate I really recommend the R as a 6D replacement!

I went from 6D II to the EOS R and didn't miss the 6D II one bit. Now I have the R5 and I don't miss the R one bit... it just keeps going on and on like that forever I bet!