I'm loving this review on the R6 MK2

[Justme]

He compares the new R6 MK2 to the R6, R5 and R7. According to him, Duade Paton, the AF on the R6 MK2 is better than on the R6 and R5. Of course a new R5 is coming soon so I expect the R5 MK2 to catch up in this department.

Yes, the original R6 has a very slight advantage in high-ISO (20 mp) vs the R6 MK2 (24 mp).

He has some charts that are very helpful to put comparisons into perspective for me.

I want the best low light possible, the best AF for now at a good price point and I think the R6 MK2 is my kind of camera.

Canon R6 Mark II Review - Better In Every Way, Except For... - YouTube

xx

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/image/55043863/small.jpg

 

[Ephemeris]

Thankyou, very interesting to watch and listen.

He's a lot better bird photographer than I am but the improvements are possibly the AF, or image recognition and tracking.

I did notice he had the exposure simulator turned on, where I often read we maybe should switch it off. The light was quite bright so maybe it's less relavant.

Thanks again

 

[Justme]

Thankyou, very interesting to watch and listen.

He's a lot better bird photographer than I am but the improvements are possibly the AF, or image recognition and tracking.

I did notice he had the exposure simulator turned on, where I often read we maybe should switch it off. The light was quite bright so maybe it's less relavant.

Thanks again

What I liked from the review, better AF, less rolling shutter effect, longer battery life, similar high-ISO noise to orginal R6 (R6 still slightly better), no over-heating issue like original R6 - not that I have ever done video with a camera but plenty with a camcorder. Icing on the cake, same price as the original R6.

Exposure simulator may be for the audience watching the video.

A very positive review. I like how he also used some of the lenses I own including the Canon 500 f4 II + 1.4x and 400 5.6L. I like the RF800 f/11 and that lens is very affordable. Good light use, mostly.

Yes, the R7 has more reach and more pixels on the subject but too many compromises to my liking such as not good for low light, rolling shutter, IBIS not as good compared to a IBIS on a FF like R6 or R6 MK2, more possibility of smearing due to greater pixel density compared to R6.

I'm going thru the above pro and cons right now. Who knows, down the road I may also get a R7 MK2 When I started in wildlife photography, I would carry everything but the kitchen sink. Now, I know what I need to carry for a specific outting and prefer to go as light as possible.

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.


http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots

 

[Ephemeris]

Thankyou, very interesting to watch and listen.

He's a lot better bird photographer than I am but the improvements are possibly the AF, or image recognition and tracking.

I did notice he had the exposure simulator turned on, where I often read we maybe should switch it off. The light was quite bright so maybe it's less relavant.

Thanks again

What I liked from the review, better AF, less rolling shutter effect, longer battery life, similar high-ISO noise to orginal R6 (R6 still slightly better), no over-heating issue like original R6 - not that I have ever done video with a camera but plenty with a camcorder. Icing on the cake, same price as the original R6.

Exposure simulator may be for the audience watching the video.

Thanks JustMe. I hadn't considered that at all. My thoughts were that he said a lot of positives, and explained where it struggled, why and how he worked around but with it switched on. It seemed to before better than my R5 but his light was much brighter than I often have in the UK.

A very positive review. I like how he also used some of the lenses I own including the Canon 500 f4 II + 1.4x and 400 5.6L. I like the RF800 f/11 and that lens is very affordable. Good light use, mostly.

Yes, the R7 has more reach and more pixels on the subject but too many compromises to my liking such as not good for low light, rolling shutter, IBIS not as good compared to a IBIS on a FF like R6 or R6 MK2, more possibility of smearing due to greater pixel density compared to R6.

I'm going thru the above pro and cons right now. Who knows, down the road I may also get a R7 MK2 When I started in wildlife photography, I would carry everything but the kitchen sink. Now, I know what I need to carry for a specific outting and prefer to go as light as possible.

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.

http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots

 

[Ephemeris]

Thankyou, very interesting to watch and listen.

He's a lot better bird photographer than I am but the improvements are possibly the AF, or image recognition and tracking.

I did notice he had the exposure simulator turned on, where I often read we maybe should switch it off. The light was quite bright so maybe it's less relavant.

Thanks again

What I liked from the review, better AF, less rolling shutter effect, longer battery life, similar high-ISO noise to orginal R6 (R6 still slightly better), no over-heating issue like original R6 - not that I have ever done video with a camera but plenty with a camcorder. Icing on the cake, same price as the original R6.

Exposure simulator may be for the audience watching the video.

Thanks JustMe. I hadn't considered that at all. My thoughts were that he said a lot of positives, and explained where it struggled, why and how he worked around but with it switched on. It seemed to before better than my R5 but his light was much brighter than I often have in the UK.

A very positive review. I like how he also used some of the lenses I own including the Canon 500 f4 II + 1.4x and 400 5.6L. I like the RF800 f/11 and that lens is very affordable. Good light use, mostly.

Yes, the R7 has more reach and more pixels on the subject but too many compromises to my liking such as not good for low light, rolling shutter, IBIS not as good compared to a IBIS on a FF like R6 or R6 MK2, more possibility of smearing due to greater pixel density compared to R6.

I'm going thru the above pro and cons right now. Who knows, down the road I may also get a R7 MK2 When I started in wildlife photography, I would carry everything but the kitchen sink. Now, I know what I need to carry for a specific outting and prefer to go as light as possible.

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.

http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots

 

[Justme]

Thankyou, very interesting to watch and listen.

He's a lot better bird photographer than I am but the improvements are possibly the AF, or image recognition and tracking.

I did notice he had the exposure simulator turned on, where I often read we maybe should switch it off. The light was quite bright so maybe it's less relavant.

Thanks again

What I liked from the review, better AF, less rolling shutter effect, longer battery life, similar high-ISO noise to orginal R6 (R6 still slightly better), no over-heating issue like original R6 - not that I have ever done video with a camera but plenty with a camcorder. Icing on the cake, same price as the original R6.

Exposure simulator may be for the audience watching the video.

Thanks JustMe. I hadn't considered that at all. My thoughts were that he said a lot of positives, and explained where it struggled, why and how he worked around but with it switched on. It seemed to before better than my R5 but his light was much brighter than I often have in the UK.

A very positive review. I like how he also used some of the lenses I own including the Canon 500 f4 II + 1.4x and 400 5.6L. I like the RF800 f/11 and that lens is very affordable. Good light use, mostly.

Yes, the R7 has more reach and more pixels on the subject but too many compromises to my liking such as not good for low light, rolling shutter, IBIS not as good compared to a IBIS on a FF like R6 or R6 MK2, more possibility of smearing due to greater pixel density compared to R6.

I'm going thru the above pro and cons right now. Who knows, down the road I may also get a R7 MK2 When I started in wildlife photography, I would carry everything but the kitchen sink. Now, I know what I need to carry for a specific outting and prefer to go as light as possible.

He didn’t mention too many negatives except for the buffer size when shooting 40 fps, a feature I will no doubt reset to 20 or less or shoot CRaw or Jpeg. Also, where something is in the way such as stalks of grass in the way of the subject catching the focus but he just sets it to a more precise AF to get around the issue if it comes up. I don’t remember any other issues than those? I will need to rewatch it.

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/image/55043863/small.jpg

 

[gipper51]

He compares the new R6 MK2 to the R6, R5 and R7. According to him, Duade Paton, the AF on the R6 MK2 is better than on the R6 and R5. Of course a new R5 is coming soon so I expect the R5 MK2 to catch up in this department.

Yes, the original R6 has a very slight advantage in high-ISO (20 mp) vs the R6 MK2 (24 mp).

He has some charts that are very helpful to put comparisons into perspective for me.

I want the best low light possible, the best AF for now at a good price point and I think the R6 MK2 is my kind of camera.

Canon R6 Mark II Review - Better In Every Way, Except For... - YouTube

xx

I'm not a wildlife shooter, and I haven't done any shooting yet with the burst modes beyond just the initial "wow, gee whiz, look at that!" type of shots. But...I can say overall that I'm delighted with the R6II. Coming from the 5D DSLRs this camera is just incredible (as I expected it to be). The AF is everything they say it is, and the IQ of the RAW files is just excellent. There is a lot to setup with custom buttons and menus to dial this camera in to your shooting preferences, but after taking time to do so it's just a smooth operating machine.

I previously owned the R5 for 6 months, so the R6II wasn't a total surprise of what to expect. But overall I can't really find any negative points to this camera. I do agree with Duade in that a couple of more custom buttons would be nice. The AF alone can warrant having 4 buttons just by itself for different use cases and quick settings. But luckily, between the Q menu and other custom button setups you don't have to dive very far.

The R6II is a winner in my book, and a more than worthy upgrade to my 5DIV.

 

[Ephemeris]

Thankyou, very interesting to watch and listen.

He's a lot better bird photographer than I am but the improvements are possibly the AF, or image recognition and tracking.

I did notice he had the exposure simulator turned on, where I often read we maybe should switch it off. The light was quite bright so maybe it's less relavant.

Thanks again

What I liked from the review, better AF, less rolling shutter effect, longer battery life, similar high-ISO noise to orginal R6 (R6 still slightly better), no over-heating issue like original R6 - not that I have ever done video with a camera but plenty with a camcorder. Icing on the cake, same price as the original R6.

Exposure simulator may be for the audience watching the video.

Thanks JustMe. I hadn't considered that at all. My thoughts were that he said a lot of positives, and explained where it struggled, why and how he worked around but with it switched on. It seemed to before better than my R5 but his light was much brighter than I often have in the UK.

A very positive review. I like how he also used some of the lenses I own including the Canon 500 f4 II + 1.4x and 400 5.6L. I like the RF800 f/11 and that lens is very affordable. Good light use, mostly.

Yes, the R7 has more reach and more pixels on the subject but too many compromises to my liking such as not good for low light, rolling shutter, IBIS not as good compared to a IBIS on a FF like R6 or R6 MK2, more possibility of smearing due to greater pixel density compared to R6.

I'm going thru the above pro and cons right now. Who knows, down the road I may also get a R7 MK2 When I started in wildlife photography, I would carry everything but the kitchen sink. Now, I know what I need to carry for a specific outting and prefer to go as light as possible.

He didn’t mention too many negatives except for the buffer size when shooting 40 fps, a feature I will no doubt reset to 20 or less or shoot CRaw or Jpeg. Also, where something is in the way such as stalks of grass in the way of the subject catching the focus but he just sets it to a more precise AF to get around the issue if it comes up. I don’t remember any other issues than those? I will need to rewatch it.

--

I think you have summed it up well. It appears to work better than the R5 but I don't have that lens, that light and certainly not the skill.

40fps is a lot of images in a burst for sure.

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/image/55043863/small.jpg

 

[Justme]

I think you have summed it up well. It appears to work better than the R5 but I don't have that lens, that light and certainly not the skill.

40fps is a lot of images in a burst for sure.

The more you photograph, the more skills you acquire. I'll reserve 40 fps for real special moments It isn't practical for the R6 MK2 buffer. One second and you're done and then wait for the buffer to clear. The pre-shot buffering has the same limitations, as shown in the video.

 

[Ephemeris]

I think you have summed it up well. It appears to work better than the R5 but I don't have that lens, that light and certainly not the skill.

40fps is a lot of images in a burst for sure.

The more you photograph, the more skills you acquire. I'll reserve 40 fps for real special moments

I think I am doing a good job of picking up bad habits but I may console myself that I'm getting good at forgetting

It isn't practical for the R6 MK2 buffer. One second and you're done and then wait for the buffer to clear. The pre-shot buffering has the same limitations, as shown in the video.

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/image/55043863/small.jpg

 

[Justme]

He compares the new R6 MK2 to the R6, R5 and R7. According to him, Duade Paton, the AF on the R6 MK2 is better than on the R6 and R5. Of course a new R5 is coming soon so I expect the R5 MK2 to catch up in this department.

Yes, the original R6 has a very slight advantage in high-ISO (20 mp) vs the R6 MK2 (24 mp).

He has some charts that are very helpful to put comparisons into perspective for me.

I want the best low light possible, the best AF for now at a good price point and I think the R6 MK2 is my kind of camera.

Canon R6 Mark II Review - Better In Every Way, Except For... - YouTube

xx

I'm not a wildlife shooter, and I haven't done any shooting yet with the burst modes beyond just the initial "wow, gee whiz, look at that!" type of shots. But...I can say overall that I'm delighted with the R6II. Coming from the 5D DSLRs this camera is just incredible (as I expected it to be). The AF is everything they say it is, and the IQ of the RAW files is just excellent. There is a lot to setup with custom buttons and menus to dial this camera in to your shooting preferences, but after taking time to do so it's just a smooth operating machine.

I previously owned the R5 for 6 months, so the R6II wasn't a total surprise of what to expect. But overall I can't really find any negative points to this camera. I do agree with Duade in that a couple of more custom buttons would be nice. The AF alone can warrant having 4 buttons just by itself for different use cases and quick settings. But luckily, between the Q menu and other custom button setups you don't have to dive very far.

The R6II is a winner in my book, and a more than worthy upgrade to my 5DIV.

I'm glad to hear your take on the R6II experience. I almost purchased a 5D MK4 several years ago. The only reason I didn't was because of the 6D (v1).

I got off the upgrade bandwagon over a decade ago. There seemed like a new camera coming out every two years or sooner (30D to 40D). The R6 tempted me but glad I waited for the R6II. I should be good for another 2 years right before even better features come out

 

[gipper51]

He compares the new R6 MK2 to the R6, R5 and R7. According to him, Duade Paton, the AF on the R6 MK2 is better than on the R6 and R5. Of course a new R5 is coming soon so I expect the R5 MK2 to catch up in this department.

Yes, the original R6 has a very slight advantage in high-ISO (20 mp) vs the R6 MK2 (24 mp).

He has some charts that are very helpful to put comparisons into perspective for me.

I want the best low light possible, the best AF for now at a good price point and I think the R6 MK2 is my kind of camera.

Canon R6 Mark II Review - Better In Every Way, Except For... - YouTube

xx

I'm not a wildlife shooter, and I haven't done any shooting yet with the burst modes beyond just the initial "wow, gee whiz, look at that!" type of shots. But...I can say overall that I'm delighted with the R6II. Coming from the 5D DSLRs this camera is just incredible (as I expected it to be). The AF is everything they say it is, and the IQ of the RAW files is just excellent. There is a lot to setup with custom buttons and menus to dial this camera in to your shooting preferences, but after taking time to do so it's just a smooth operating machine.

I previously owned the R5 for 6 months, so the R6II wasn't a total surprise of what to expect. But overall I can't really find any negative points to this camera. I do agree with Duade in that a couple of more custom buttons would be nice. The AF alone can warrant having 4 buttons just by itself for different use cases and quick settings. But luckily, between the Q menu and other custom button setups you don't have to dive very far.

The R6II is a winner in my book, and a more than worthy upgrade to my 5DIV.

I'm glad to hear your take on the R6II experience. I almost purchased a 5D MK4 several years ago. The only reason I didn't was because of the 6D (v1).

The 5DIV is a darn fine camera, and I'm glad to have had it the last few years. It's still extremely capable, just makes you work a little harder than mirrorless does. Honestly, I could be content shooting with it for many years to come, but the gear nerd in me wanted one of these shiny new toys

I got off the upgrade bandwagon over a decade ago. There seemed like a new camera coming out every two years or sooner (30D to 40D). The R6 tempted me but glad I waited for the R6II. I should be good for another 2 years right before even better features come out

Yeah back in the 30D days the improvements were coming fast, at least in terms of pixel counts and sensor sizes. Things slowed down a bit a few years later, but mirrorless seems to have re-ignited the innovation wars. The capture speed and AF sophistication that's arrived in the last few years is quite astonishing, really. And doesn't appear to be slowing down.

--
My site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com

 

[Justme]

I got off the upgrade bandwagon over a decade ago. There seemed like a new camera coming out every two years or sooner (30D to 40D). The R6 tempted me but glad I waited for the R6II. I should be good for another 2 years right before even better features come out

Yeah back in the 30D days the improvements were coming fast, at least in terms of pixel counts and sensor sizes. Things slowed down a bit a few years later, but mirrorless seems to have re-ignited the innovation wars. The capture speed and AF sophistication that's arrived in the last few years is quite astonishing, really. And doesn't appear to be slowing down.

One of the biggest improvements with Canon mirrorless vs DSLR was the issue with front and back focusing and AF micro-adjustmnet which I understand is no longer needed with mirrorless.

 

[R2D2]

What I liked from the review, better AF, less rolling shutter effect, longer battery life, similar high-ISO noise to orginal R6 (R6 still slightly better), no over-heating issue like original R6 - not that I have ever done video with a camera but plenty with a camcorder. Icing on the cake, same price as the original R6.

Exposure simulator may be for the audience watching the video.

A very positive review. I like how he also used some of the lenses I own including the Canon 500 f4 II + 1.4x and 400 5.6L. I like the RF800 f/11 and that lens is very affordable. Good light use, mostly.

Yes, the R7 has more reach and more pixels on the subject but too many compromises to my liking such as not good for low light, rolling shutter, IBIS not as good compared to a IBIS on a FF like R6 or R6 MK2, more possibility of smearing due to greater pixel density compared to R6.

I'm going thru the above pro and cons right now. Who knows, down the road I may also get a R7 MK2 When I started in wildlife photography, I would carry everything but the kitchen sink. Now, I know what I need to carry for a specific outting and prefer to go as light as possible.

Hiya Golfpic. Really glad to see you will be (finally) joining this Forum! :-D

I think your (and Duade's) evaluation is spot on. The R6ii is a heck of a machine, and with me coming from a 7D2 like yourself, I think you'll be very well served (esp at this price point).

Really, the main reason to want to go to something like the R5 would indeed be for the greater resolution (which I'll be sticking with for wildlife). But the R6ii is my everyday workhorse (events, sports, portraits, etc), and I'll very much appreciate the additional AF configurability and the higher resolution of the R6ii over the R6.

Shoot with the lenses that you have for now. You'll develop a very good feel for where you want to go from there. Lots of pros and cons to all of the choices out there! For wildlife I shoot with the RF 100-500 + 1.4x (700mm) almost 100% of the time, and f/10 isn't an issue for me at all (since I process my RAWs with DxO Photolab 6). But if you still love (and can tote) your excellent 500/4, the larger aperture will of course give you much better DOF control.

One note on crop mode: I wouldn't use it on a regular basis. I only invoke it for very distant and/or partially obscured subjects where the Eye AF is having a hard time locking on. In these cases Crop Mode will help with initial AF acquisition. Otherwise, crop in post.

Keep us updated on your progress. I for one am totally itching to see what you get!! :-D

R2

ps. There's a much better solution IME to invoking (non tracking) Spot AF for use on the Back Button ( ie: * button ).

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[Justme]

What I liked from the review, better AF, less rolling shutter effect, longer battery life, similar high-ISO noise to orginal R6 (R6 still slightly better), no over-heating issue like original R6 - not that I have ever done video with a camera but plenty with a camcorder. Icing on the cake, same price as the original R6.

Exposure simulator may be for the audience watching the video.

A very positive review. I like how he also used some of the lenses I own including the Canon 500 f4 II + 1.4x and 400 5.6L. I like the RF800 f/11 and that lens is very affordable. Good light use, mostly.

Yes, the R7 has more reach and more pixels on the subject but too many compromises to my liking such as not good for low light, rolling shutter, IBIS not as good compared to a IBIS on a FF like R6 or R6 MK2, more possibility of smearing due to greater pixel density compared to R6.

I'm going thru the above pro and cons right now. Who knows, down the road I may also get a R7 MK2 When I started in wildlife photography, I would carry everything but the kitchen sink. Now, I know what I need to carry for a specific outting and prefer to go as light as possible.

Hiya Golfpic. Really glad to see you will be (finally) joining this Forum! :-D

I think your (and Duade's) evaluation is spot on. The R6ii is a heck of a machine, and with me coming from a 7D2 like yourself, I think you'll be very well served (esp at this price point).

Really, the main reason to want to go to something like the R5 would indeed be for the greater resolution (which I'll be sticking with for wildlife). But the R6ii is my everyday workhorse (events, sports, portraits, etc), and I'll very much appreciate the additional AF configurability and the higher resolution of the R6ii over the R6.

Shoot with the lenses that you have for now. You'll develop a very good feel for where you want to go from there. Lots of pros and cons to all of the choices out there! For wildlife I shoot with the RF 100-500 + 1.4x (700mm) almost 100% of the time, and f/10 isn't an issue for me at all (since I process my RAWs with DxO Photolab 6). But if you still love (and can tote) your excellent 500/4, the larger aperture will of course give you much better DOF control.

One note on crop mode: I wouldn't use it on a regular basis. I only invoke it for very distant and/or partially obscured subjects where the Eye AF is having a hard time locking on. In these cases Crop Mode will help with initial AF acquisition. Otherwise, crop in post.

Keep us updated on your progress. I for one am totally itching to see what you get!! :-D

R2

ps. There's a much better solution IME to invoking (non tracking) Spot AF for use on the Back Button ( ie: * button ).

We meet again Seems like I've spent 2 decades on Canon forums. Thanks for the kind words and your opinion on the R6II. I will keep all you said in mind.

 

[Justme]

I think you have summed it up well. It appears to work better than the R5 but I don't have that lens, that light and certainly not the skill.

40fps is a lot of images in a burst for sure.

The more you photograph, the more skills you acquire. I'll reserve 40 fps for real special moments

I think I am doing a good job of picking up bad habits but I may console myself that I'm getting good at forgetting

It isn't practical for the R6 MK2 buffer. One second and you're done and then wait for the buffer to clear. The pre-shot buffering has the same limitations, as shown in the video.

I think we've all been there at one point of time or another.

 

[Rudy Pohl]

Hi Justme,

Yes indeed, what an excellent comprehensive review of the R6ii by this accomplished photographer. As R2 has requested below, do let us know what you finally decide.

Good luck on your research and decision,
Rudy

 

[MAC]

What I liked from the review, better AF, less rolling shutter effect, longer battery life, similar high-ISO noise to orginal R6 (R6 still slightly better), no over-heating issue like original R6 - not that I have ever done video with a camera but plenty with a camcorder. Icing on the cake, same price as the original R6.

Exposure simulator may be for the audience watching the video.

A very positive review. I like how he also used some of the lenses I own including the Canon 500 f4 II + 1.4x and 400 5.6L. I like the RF800 f/11 and that lens is very affordable. Good light use, mostly.

Yes, the R7 has more reach and more pixels on the subject but too many compromises to my liking such as not good for low light, rolling shutter, IBIS not as good compared to a IBIS on a FF like R6 or R6 MK2, more possibility of smearing due to greater pixel density compared to R6.

I'm going thru the above pro and cons right now. Who knows, down the road I may also get a R7 MK2 When I started in wildlife photography, I would carry everything but the kitchen sink. Now, I know what I need to carry for a specific outting and prefer to go as light as possible.

Hiya Golfpic. Really glad to see you will be (finally) joining this Forum! :-D

I think your (and Duade's) evaluation is spot on. The R6ii is a heck of a machine, and with me coming from a 7D2 like yourself, I think you'll be very well served (esp at this price point).

Really, the main reason to want to go to something like the R5 would indeed be for the greater resolution (which I'll be sticking with for wildlife). But the R6ii is my everyday workhorse (events, sports, portraits, etc), and I'll very much appreciate the additional AF configurability and the higher resolution of the R6ii over the R6.

Shoot with the lenses that you have for now. You'll develop a very good feel for where you want to go from there. Lots of pros and cons to all of the choices out there! For wildlife I shoot with the RF 100-500 + 1.4x (700mm) almost 100% of the time, and f/10 isn't an issue for me at all (since I process my RAWs with DxO Photolab 6). But if you still love (and can tote) your excellent 500/4, the larger aperture will of course give you much better DOF control.

One note on crop mode: I wouldn't use it on a regular basis. I only invoke it for very distant and/or partially obscured subjects where the Eye AF is having a hard time locking on. In these cases Crop Mode will help with initial AF acquisition. Otherwise, crop in post.

Keep us updated on your progress. I for one am totally itching to see what you get!! :-D

R2

ps. There's a much better solution IME to invoking (non tracking) Spot AF for use on the Back Button ( ie: * button ).

We meet again Seems like I've spent 2 decades on Canon forums. Thanks for the kind words and your opinion on the R6II. I will keep all you said in mind.

a pro tool for sure

though reach is the limiter

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/image/55043863/small.jpg

 

[Justme]

Hi Justme,

Yes indeed, what an excellent comprehensive review of the R6ii by this accomplished photographer. As R2 has requested below, do let us know what you finally decide.

Good luck on your research and decision,
Rudy

Thanks Rudy.

 

[Justme]

a pro tool for sure

though reach is the limiter

Sometimes I have to weigh the options and make some compromises

I'm not spending $8,000 CAD before taxes on an R3. Can't justify it. R5 is up there in price too and is about to be bested by the R5 II.

Because no matter what camera you buy today will be bested by more features or newer technology 2+ years down the road. Which is why I held onto my 40D for 7+ years and the 7D MK2 for equally as long. I'll still use it when I really need the reach. These cameras can last a long time nowadays.

I value low-light shooting as a top priority which is why I didn't consider the R5. I know noise-reduction in post will help to mitigiate the noise issue but the R6 and R6 II have a headstart in this area. I'm not afraid to shoot at ISO 102,000 if I had to. I will avoid using that ISO if I can.

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/image/55043863/small.jpg