Buy RP or R6? Cheap body, good lens or good body, cheap lens?

[Rakuen]

I am looking for a new camera and the canon camera's appeals to me the most I do not shoot professionally. I mostly shoot travel, but I also want a new camera that is faster and performances better at low light (for indoor). Also my daughter will be running around soon, so I want a camera that can capture those nice moments.

The 2 options that I am thinking of is the rp with the rf 24-70 2.8 or the r6 with 50mm 1.8 (for now).

What is a better choice? Cheap body, good lens or good body, cheap lens?

 

[Canon_Guy]

In my text I did not evaluate whether bodies are or are not expensive. I just expressed that I rather keep lenses than bodies cause they bring a stable value and there is not so much to improve as with the bodies.

No need to search for any hidden meanings.

 

[Karl_Guttag]

A agree with the general consensus. If you can afford the RP plus RF28-70, you would typically be better off with the R6 plus RF24-105f4. You could probably throw in the RF50f1.8 as a rounding error on the entire purchase.

I have the RP, R5 (very similar to the R6 but with higher resolution), RF24-70f2.8, RF50f1.8, and many other RF lenses (including the 24-240, which I like, but neither of the 24-105's -- see my profile).

My main reaction is the "Lens absolutists" that say always get the best lens. But at some point, you are limited by your weakest link. A great lens on a poor body will result in a lot of missed shots due to noise or focus. A great body has a multiplicative effect in that it makes all the lenses perform better.

Looking back on my last 22 years with DSLRs, I would figure, on average, a lens lasts about 10 to 15 years before it is "obsolete" or replaced by something significantly better. A camera body is probably good for about 4 to 5 years. Lenses will hold their value much better where a body becomes pretty worthless most of the time in 5 years.

In the specific example, the RP can take great pictures. Still, the R5/R6 has much lower noise at the same ISO, better features, better and faster focus, a better viewfinder, longer battery life, and a better user interface (to name a few things). I think your odds of getting great pictures, particularly indoors, would be much higher with the R6.

The RF24-70f2.8L, I consider "OK but not great for an L lens." It is a good range and f-number for indoor shooting. The RF50f1.8 is probably the weakest of the "consumer-grade" RF lenses. It is sharp in the center but a bit mushy on the outer 1/3rd of the image, wide open through at least f4. If you were going to shoot f4 anyway, I would not take off the RF24-70f2.8 or RF24-105f4 to put on the RF50f1.8. The reason for wanting the RF50f1.8 would be for the shallow DoF, which is about it, IMO.

I think the RF24-105f4 would be better indoors than the STM version, most importantly, in focusing ability. I don't know how you would experience the full capability of the R6 without at least one lens with USM focusing.

 

[Wildlife Guy]

I read the post again and want to make a final point. I normally shoot wildlife, but photographing children has some of the same characteristics - fast, erratic motion. If the goal is to get the shot vs absolute perfection, better EVF and eye detect/tracking would justify the R6. Normally I am a lenses first guy, but the tech in the R5/R6 can provide a significant advantage in capturing moving subjects. It looks like his budget can support the R6 + 24-105 f4 L IS and that would be a great start. Add the 50mm f1.8 or 85f2 and you have a great travel and portrait setup.

 

[Karl_Guttag]

I read the post again and want to make a final point. I normally shoot wildlife, but photographing children has some of the same characteristics - fast, erratic motion. If the goal is to get the shot vs absolute perfection, better EVF and eye detect/tracking would justify the R6. Normally I am a lenses first guy, but the tech in the R5/R6 can provide a significant advantage in capturing moving subjects. It looks like his budget can support the R6 + 24-105 f4 L IS and that would be a great start. Add the 50mm f1.8 or 85f2 and you have a great travel and portrait setup.

I agree with this advice. I also like considering the RF85f2 over the RF50f1.8. But there are plusses and minuses.

The RF85f2 cost more than 3x as much as the RF50f1.8 and is much large (not a "throw in the pocket lens" like the RF50f1.8). The 85f2 is significantly sharper and has more contrast in the outer parts of the image, and has IS (which is probably not that important with the R6). Both have STM focusing which is slow and noisy (and the biggest downside for the RF85f2).

 

[kopper]

the r6 with 50mm 1.8 (for now).

Primarily because of your daughter in low light and eye focusing/tracking.

Travel photos will also be great and you can get another lens as you learn.

kopper

PS be sure to check the Canon Refurbished site!

--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
pix.kopperhead.com
http://www.kopperhead.com

 

[davel33]

I took a different approach

FORGET the RF 24-70, yes its a great lens BUT it has very limited range.

GIVE the R a look its a great portrait and landscape body. I have both the R and R6 and use the R for portrait and landscape and the R6 for things that move.

The lens I would get in your place is the RF 24-240*, its a great vacation lens. Its not an L lens but so what. I dont stay out in the rain when shooting so I have no need for an L with weather resistance and keep in mind its NOT weather proof. If you find you want a wider lens you can go with EF 16-35 f4 or the new RF 14-35 f4. I never considered the 24-70 a vacation lens, you will end up getting a longer lens (70-200) and start the lens changing game. Its a give and take comparison with the RF 24-105 f4. Over all the RF 24-105 is a bit better than the RF 24-240 but you get a good 10x zoom that is only 50G more weight and 0.6" longer but smaller in diameter.

* I have and use the RF 24-240

 

[Emile15]

Go for the good camera, because you may well find that some of Canon's cheap RF lenses (RF 35 1.8; RF 24-105 f4-7.1) will more than adequate.

 

[zman2596]

I had a Canon 5D mark III and then got the RP to dive into mirrorless. I loved it. It was a great jump into playing with mirrorless. The battery life isn't great, the autofocus is good but not super fast, the FPS is low, but overall you get good images from the camera. I got an R6 for professional work and I love it! It makes me not enjoy my RP as much, but I'd rather take my RP than my $2,500 R6 everywhere. I do like the size of the RP. If you have an RP with a RF 50mm 1.8 or the RF 35mm 1.8, it's a great smaller kit. I think I'd lean to the RP or R and get better glass, or more glass. The eye autofocus on the RP isn't as good, but its still pretty good for simple portraiture. I've recently gone to Fuji for personal and more casual shooting. I know this isn't related to your post, but what I've learned is that hauling around an R6 or even an RP is a large kit for more casual shooting, travel, etc. Definitely would pick the RP over the R6 for that type of shooting if I want to take my Canon gear.

 

[unhappymeal]

I had a Canon 5D mark III and then got the RP to dive into mirrorless. I loved it. It was a great jump into playing with mirrorless. The battery life isn't great, the autofocus is good but not super fast, the FPS is low, but overall you get good images from the camera. I got an R6 for professional work and I love it! It makes me not enjoy my RP as much, but I'd rather take my RP than my $2,500 R6 everywhere. I do like the size of the RP. If you have an RP with a RF 50mm 1.8 or the RF 35mm 1.8, it's a great smaller kit. I think I'd lean to the RP or R and get better glass, or more glass. The eye autofocus on the RP isn't as good, but its still pretty good for simple portraiture. I've recently gone to Fuji for personal and more casual shooting. I know this isn't related to your post, but what I've learned is that hauling around an R6 or even an RP is a large kit for more casual shooting, travel, etc. Definitely would pick the RP over the R6 for that type of shooting if I want to take my Canon gear.

I'm genuinely curious as to how you concluded the RP is a large kit compared to Fuji. The RP is within 1.2 cm of the width of the X-T30. Yes, it has a deeper grip (about 3 cm), but once you add a lens to any Fuji body, the depths are nearly identical. There's a lot I don't like about the RP, but size or mass isn't one of its issues.

 

[zman2596]

I had a Canon 5D mark III and then got the RP to dive into mirrorless. I loved it. It was a great jump into playing with mirrorless. The battery life isn't great, the autofocus is good but not super fast, the FPS is low, but overall you get good images from the camera. I got an R6 for professional work and I love it! It makes me not enjoy my RP as much, but I'd rather take my RP than my $2,500 R6 everywhere. I do like the size of the RP. If you have an RP with a RF 50mm 1.8 or the RF 35mm 1.8, it's a great smaller kit. I think I'd lean to the RP or R and get better glass, or more glass. The eye autofocus on the RP isn't as good, but its still pretty good for simple portraiture. I've recently gone to Fuji for personal and more casual shooting. I know this isn't related to your post, but what I've learned is that hauling around an R6 or even an RP is a large kit for more casual shooting, travel, etc. Definitely would pick the RP over the R6 for that type of shooting if I want to take my Canon gear.

I'm genuinely curious as to how you concluded the RP is a large kit compared to Fuji. The RP is within 1.2 cm of the width of the X-T30. Yes, it has a deeper grip (about 3 cm), but once you add a lens to any Fuji body, the depths are nearly identical. There's a lot I don't like about the RP, but size or mass isn't one of its issues.

Bodies, correct. They aren't hugely different, but the lenses make a big difference. An X-T20 with small primes and especially the 27mm pancake lens are light weight and generally smaller.

Here is a comparable shot of an X-T20 with a 50mm F2 and a Canon RP with an RF 85mm F2. That's 75mm versus 85mm equivalency but its close enough in usage. The Fuji kit is much smaller in general when you look at lens options. I have a small bag that holds my fuji and 3-4 lenses and is perfect for street use. The kit in general overall is smaller than equivalent primes etc.

 

[unhappymeal]

I had a Canon 5D mark III and then got the RP to dive into mirrorless. I loved it. It was a great jump into playing with mirrorless. The battery life isn't great, the autofocus is good but not super fast, the FPS is low, but overall you get good images from the camera. I got an R6 for professional work and I love it! It makes me not enjoy my RP as much, but I'd rather take my RP than my $2,500 R6 everywhere. I do like the size of the RP. If you have an RP with a RF 50mm 1.8 or the RF 35mm 1.8, it's a great smaller kit. I think I'd lean to the RP or R and get better glass, or more glass. The eye autofocus on the RP isn't as good, but its still pretty good for simple portraiture. I've recently gone to Fuji for personal and more casual shooting. I know this isn't related to your post, but what I've learned is that hauling around an R6 or even an RP is a large kit for more casual shooting, travel, etc. Definitely would pick the RP over the R6 for that type of shooting if I want to take my Canon gear.

I'm genuinely curious as to how you concluded the RP is a large kit compared to Fuji. The RP is within 1.2 cm of the width of the X-T30. Yes, it has a deeper grip (about 3 cm), but once you add a lens to any Fuji body, the depths are nearly identical. There's a lot I don't like about the RP, but size or mass isn't one of its issues.

Bodies, correct. They aren't hugely different, but the lenses make a big difference. An X-T20 with small primes and especially the 27mm pancake lens are light weight and generally smaller.

Here is a comparable shot of an X-T20 with a 50mm F2 and a Canon RP with an RF 85mm F2. That's 75mm versus 85mm equivalency but its close enough in usage. The Fuji kit is much smaller in general when you look at lens options. I have a small bag that holds my fuji and 3-4 lenses and is perfect for street use. The kit in general overall is smaller than equivalent primes etc.

Er, they're not comparable in DoF or physical aperture size. Try mounting the Fuji XF 56 f/1.2 R. I have. The sizes are comparable.

 

[zman2596]

I had a Canon 5D mark III and then got the RP to dive into mirrorless. I loved it. It was a great jump into playing with mirrorless. The battery life isn't great, the autofocus is good but not super fast, the FPS is low, but overall you get good images from the camera. I got an R6 for professional work and I love it! It makes me not enjoy my RP as much, but I'd rather take my RP than my $2,500 R6 everywhere. I do like the size of the RP. If you have an RP with a RF 50mm 1.8 or the RF 35mm 1.8, it's a great smaller kit. I think I'd lean to the RP or R and get better glass, or more glass. The eye autofocus on the RP isn't as good, but its still pretty good for simple portraiture. I've recently gone to Fuji for personal and more casual shooting. I know this isn't related to your post, but what I've learned is that hauling around an R6 or even an RP is a large kit for more casual shooting, travel, etc. Definitely would pick the RP over the R6 for that type of shooting if I want to take my Canon gear.

I'm genuinely curious as to how you concluded the RP is a large kit compared to Fuji. The RP is within 1.2 cm of the width of the X-T30. Yes, it has a deeper grip (about 3 cm), but once you add a lens to any Fuji body, the depths are nearly identical. There's a lot I don't like about the RP, but size or mass isn't one of its issues.

Bodies, correct. They aren't hugely different, but the lenses make a big difference. An X-T20 with small primes and especially the 27mm pancake lens are light weight and generally smaller.

Here is a comparable shot of an X-T20 with a 50mm F2 and a Canon RP with an RF 85mm F2. That's 75mm versus 85mm equivalency but its close enough in usage. The Fuji kit is much smaller in general when you look at lens options. I have a small bag that holds my fuji and 3-4 lenses and is perfect for street use. The kit in general overall is smaller than equivalent primes etc.

Er, they're not comparable in DoF or physical aperture size. Try mounting the Fuji XF 56 f/1.2 R. I have. The sizes are comparable.

True. I'd say that if aperture and depth of field is that important, then yes, stick to the full frame option. Otherwise, there are smaller kit options besides Canon full frame. I think we can agree to that much.

 

[rreichar]

The conventional wisdom is that you should spend money on lenses rather than bodies which depreciate more. I think that the R5 and R6 are a generational system in that the AF is significantly better than the mirrorless cameras that preceded it. I have owned a lot of cameras and when I bought an R6 on a whim it really made my other cameras feel obsolete. I have shot it with cheap lenses and expensive lenses and the photos look very nice with either. I would recommend going with the R6.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Er, they're not comparable in DoF or physical aperture size. Try mounting the Fuji XF 56 f/1.2 R. I have. The sizes are comparable.

I have a very long history of explaining equivalence to people on these forums (I still carry the mental scars), so trust me when I say I completely understand it. But equivalence isn't something to be held up as a necessity, it's just a way of making comparisons when you need to. In many cases, and this has been a good example, the larger format is actually the more satisfactory option of two equivalent combinations.

The point about the M43 setup isn't to be strictly equivalent in the optical geometry sense, it's to fulfil the same practical purpose using a much smaller package.

To take this to its logical extreme - I often take phone camera shots while out with my R5, such as to record the environment I've been shooting wildlife macros in, or to take BTS shots of the friends I'm with. It saves me carrying and swapping to a wide angle lens, and I don't think about equivalence when doing it. I could use my adapted EF 16-35/4L IS which is, what, half a dozen stops faster in equivalence terms? But how relevant would it be to know anyway?

 

[R2D2]

Er, they're not comparable in DoF or physical aperture size. Try mounting the Fuji XF 56 f/1.2 R. I have. The sizes are comparable.

I have a very long history of explaining equivalence to people on these forums (I still carry the mental scars), so trust me when I say I completely understand it. But equivalence isn't something to be held up as a necessity, it's just a way of making comparisons when you need to. In many cases, and this has been a good example, the larger format is actually the more satisfactory option of two equivalent combinations.

The point about the M43 setup isn't to be strictly equivalent in the optical geometry sense, it's to fulfil the same practical purpose using a much smaller package.

To take this to its logical extreme - I often take phone camera shots while out with my R5, such as to record the environment I've been shooting wildlife macros in, or to take BTS shots of the friends I'm with. It saves me carrying and swapping to a wide angle lens, and I don't think about equivalence when doing it. I could use my adapted EF 16-35/4L IS which is, what, half a dozen stops faster in equivalence terms? But how relevant would it be to know anyway?

+1 Nicely put.

R2

 

[unhappymeal]

Er, they're not comparable in DoF or physical aperture size. Try mounting the Fuji XF 56 f/1.2 R. I have. The sizes are comparable.

I have a very long history of explaining equivalence to people on these forums (I still carry the mental scars), so trust me when I say I completely understand it. But equivalence isn't something to be held up as a necessity, it's just a way of making comparisons when you need to. In many cases, and this has been a good example, the larger format is actually the more satisfactory option of two equivalent combinations.

The point about the M43 setup isn't to be strictly equivalent in the optical geometry sense, it's to fulfil the same practical purpose using a much smaller package.

To take this to its logical extreme - I often take phone camera shots while out with my R5, such as to record the environment I've been shooting wildlife macros in, or to take BTS shots of the friends I'm with. It saves me carrying and swapping to a wide angle lens, and I don't think about equivalence when doing it. I could use my adapted EF 16-35/4L IS which is, what, half a dozen stops faster in equivalence terms? But how relevant would it be to know anyway?

Sure and he has a point for that particular focal length, but you could easily make a compact RP kit with the 35mm or 50mm prime. Incidentally, Sigma makes a 90mm f/2.8 that will get you just as compact as the Fuji kit if you shoot with Sony bodies.

I will also add that I primarily shoot m4/3, so I understand very well the practical purpose comment. It just seems odd to explicitly call out Fuji here, when it's really not much smaller and Canon has been going to painstaking lengths to make small kits available for RF.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Er, they're not comparable in DoF or physical aperture size. Try mounting the Fuji XF 56 f/1.2 R. I have. The sizes are comparable.

I have a very long history of explaining equivalence to people on these forums (I still carry the mental scars), so trust me when I say I completely understand it. But equivalence isn't something to be held up as a necessity, it's just a way of making comparisons when you need to. In many cases, and this has been a good example, the larger format is actually the more satisfactory option of two equivalent combinations.

The point about the M43 setup isn't to be strictly equivalent in the optical geometry sense, it's to fulfil the same practical purpose using a much smaller package.

To take this to its logical extreme - I often take phone camera shots while out with my R5, such as to record the environment I've been shooting wildlife macros in, or to take BTS shots of the friends I'm with. It saves me carrying and swapping to a wide angle lens, and I don't think about equivalence when doing it. I could use my adapted EF 16-35/4L IS which is, what, half a dozen stops faster in equivalence terms? But how relevant would it be to know anyway?

+1 Nicely put.

Thanks R2

 

[Rakuen]

Based on all the advice, I just bought the r6 with the kit lens rf 24-105mm f/4-7.1, this was actually the only one available right now (availability of the r6 is appearantly very poor right now in my country).

I will buy a prime lens with this, but I will first see how this lens performances.

Thanks for all the advice!

 

[Canon_Guy]

Congrats for the decission !

A bit pity 24-105/4 was not available since it fits to the R6 a bit better. Still the STM version is optically very good and most probably you will not miss anything (if you will not try the L brother).

 

[thunder storm]

Congrats for the decission !

A bit pity 24-105/4 was not available since it fits to the R6 a bit better. Still the STM version is optically very good and most probably you will not miss anything (if you will not try the L brother).

This zoom is more comfortable when traveling. Saving some budged for bright primes is probably more important when your "L" is only f/4.0