Is it worth upgrading R6 mk1 to mk2 for wildlife/birding/BIF?

I struggle to decide if i should spend a reasonably big amount of money to upgrade my R6 to mk2, I know the differences in specs but one thing really bothers me and if any of you have experience (or even can share example raws) on this, i would be happy:

I do lot of wildlife and BIF (birds in flight) with R6 and RF100-500, sometimes with RF1.4 extender. Still depending on subject and situation i often need to crop quite alot. Now 24 is not much more that 20 but i read a lot of info and experiences that the IQ and details are much better in mk2. Perhaps due to different AA filter or something similar.

So will you get a much better highly cropped image from Mk2?

I sometimes use Topaz gigapixel and it creates often anomalies in e.g. bird feathers. I also wonder if a more detailed original picture would generate less artefacts...

And finally if you have the experience, is the AF and animal/bird tracking really noticeable better in mk2?

Thanks for any help in the difficult question ;).

I highly doubt you would get your moneys worth on that upgrade, especially given your use case. You would need a substantial bump in resolution (R5) to see a big enough difference IMO.

I also have been seeing relatively similar results from the R6I and R6II, so if anyone has comparisons of the two that says otherwise Id be interested to see them. Ive been given the impression the IQ difference is not that impressive.

I fully agree but as even canon says mkii gives as much details as 5d series 30M sensor i would really like to hear from someone who has really done the cropping on both. And would love to see raws to compare.

steeldrake wrote:

i read a lot of info and experiences that the IQ and details are much better in mk2. Perhaps due to different AA filter or something similar.

So will you get a much better highly cropped image from Mk2?

No, same IQ for me, but 4MP is better than nothing  (20%)

steeldrake wrote:

And finally if you have the experience, is the AF and animal/bird tracking really noticeable better in mk2?

Yes, better subject detection

steeldrake wrote:

I struggle to decide if i should spend a reasonably big amount of money to upgrade my R6 to mk2, I know the differences in specs but one thing really bothers me and if any of you have experience (or even can share example raws) on this, i would be happy:

I do lot of wildlife and BIF (birds in flight) with R6 and RF100-500, sometimes with RF1.4 extender. Still depending on subject and situation i often need to crop quite alot. Now 24 is not much more that 20 but i read a lot of info and experiences that the IQ and details are much better in mk2. Perhaps due to different AA filter or something similar.

So will you get a much better highly cropped image from Mk2?

I sometimes use Topaz gigapixel and it creates often anomalies in e.g. bird feathers. I also wonder if a more detailed original picture would generate less artefacts...

And finally if you have the experience, is the AF and animal/bird tracking really noticeable better in mk2?

Thanks for any help in the difficult question ;).

In terms of cropping, the difference wil be marginal.

You would get considerably better results with an R5, or even consider adding an R7 body for your birding.

steeldrake wrote:

I struggle to decide if i should spend a reasonably big amount of money to upgrade my R6 to mk2, I know the differences in specs but one thing really bothers me and if any of you have experience (or even can share example raws) on this, i would be happy:

I do lot of wildlife and BIF (birds in flight) with R6 and RF100-500, sometimes with RF1.4 extender. Still depending on subject and situation i often need to crop quite alot. Now 24 is not much more that 20

It is very marginal. On the real pictures you will not notice any relevant difference. You can try it by yourself: download any RAW file from R6II (from a DPR sample gallery for instance, crop it down to 20Mpix and print both the original and crop on A3. You will see literally no difference in resolution or sharpness.

but i read a lot of info and experiences that the IQ and details are much better in mk2.

Comparing the DPR studio test scene tells that this rumor is not true.

Perhaps due to different AA filter or something similar.

So will you get a much better highly cropped image from Mk2?

No.

I sometimes use Topaz gigapixel and it creates often anomalies in e.g. bird feathers. I also wonder if a more detailed original picture would generate less artefacts...

Well, this is the issue with Topaz and its way too much overcooked output. But since the actual resolution of both cameras is hair tight, also the outcome from Topaz will be the same. Try Adobe Super Res, it gives much more natural output, especially but not only color wise.

And finally if you have the experience, is the AF and animal/bird tracking really noticeable better in mk2?

The AF on R6 is already very good and reliable itself. R6II brings something on the top but it is rather a fine tuning improvement than a generation leap. Many videos available on this topic on YT.

Thanks for any help in the difficult question ;).

As other said, if you want a real step forwards, the R7 might be the answer. It has significantly better reach due to 1.6x crop, on the top it has notable higher resolution and the same improved AF as R6II.

The R7's logical downside is MUCH worse per pixel noise than the R6 which spoils its resolution advantage from let us say ISO6400 up.

So if you shoot wild life under a good light situation, then R7 would be a benefit. If you often use ISO6400 and higher, it will not bring anything in terms of better detail resolution.

Canon_Guy wrote:

As other said, if you want a real step forwards, the R7 might be the answer. It has significantly better reach due to 1.6x crop, on the top it has notable higher resolution and the same improved AF as R6II

No, it's not the same AF, many report said R7's AF it's not as good than R6 or R5 (so it can't be as good than R6 Mark II)

https://youtu.be/aT1TFLPgHK0?t=2468

I would suggest to better invest in a second body, namely the R7 for your purpose!

Llop wrote:

Agree on the R7 recommendation, much better reach, more cropping leeway and overall noise level should be similar to the cropped R6 images but more detail (the more light the better).

True up to ISO3200, not true from ISO6400 up. Check out the link I posted.

The only relevant advantage of the R6 Mark II for this use case (ergonomics aside) would be IMHO the improved rolling shutter.

Otherwise the other option currently available to gain significantly more detail is the R5 as already mentioned

Exactly. If you resample the high ISO  R7 pic to the R6 7 MP resolution the R7 pics are actually better noice wise. The R6 does not have such an outstanding sensor but benefits from its low res. That gets allways mixed up also in comparison to the R5!

And finally if you have the experience, is the AF and animal/bird tracking really noticeable better in mk2?

Yes, better subject detection

With R6 AF often struggles in these scenarios 1. while shooting fishing Ospreys the background changes quickly when following the bird and water splashes all over when the bird hits water. 2. trying to focus to a bearded tit in the middle of reeds. Any comment whether mk2 is any better?

steeldrake wrote:

And finally if you have the experience, is the AF and animal/bird tracking really noticeable better in mk2?

Yes, better subject detection

With R6 AF often struggles in these scenarios

I think first you need to verify that all of your settings are optimized for the kind of shooting that you’re doing.  It takes a while to develop a good setup and good technique.

1. while shooting fishing Ospreys the background changes quickly when following the bird and water splashes all over when the bird hits water.

Diving ospreys are indeed HARD.  Follow that sucker as perfectly as you can, keeping it in exactly the same location in the viewfinder (don’t let it wander or you’ll get subject motion blur).  Keep your shutter speed up.

Remain aware of your depth of field.  You’ll often have enough DOF so that you can let off of the autofocus as the bird hits the water (so that the focal plane doesn’t wander due to the splash).  Back button focus helps with this, but you can also program a button to Stop Focus if that’s your thing.  We’re fortunate that an osprey’s dive is so vertical!

2. trying to focus to a bearded tit in the middle of reeds. Any comment whether mk2 is any better?

I haven’t been out in the bush birding with my R6ii yet (my R5 is assigned this duty).  From my experience shooting people (and sports) with the R6 and R6ii, I’d suspect that the mk2’s AF would be slightly improved for birding.  The way I shoot, the increased options for AF areas don’t really come into play for birding (for people, bigtime).

A couple of techniques that may help with birds (literally) in the bush: Turn off Exposure Simulation in dark habitats.  This brightens the image that the AF has to work with and improves subject recognition and acquisition.  Second, put the camera in 1.6x Crop Mode.  This also helps with (especially eye) AF recognition and acquisition on distant and/or partially obscured subjects.  I keep “Aspect Ratio” programmed to the “Set” button for easy access.

See if any of this helps the next time you’re out.  Best of luck!

R2

R2D2 wrote:

steeldrake wrote:

And finally if you have the experience, is the AF and animal/bird tracking really noticeable better in mk2?

Yes, better subject detection

With R6 AF often struggles in these scenarios

I think first you need to verify that all of your settings are optimized for the kind of shooting that you’re doing. It takes a while to develop a good setup and good technique.

1. while shooting fishing Ospreys the background changes quickly when following the bird and water splashes all over when the bird hits water.

Diving ospreys are indeed HARD. Follow that sucker as perfectly as you can, keeping it in exactly the same location in the viewfinder (don’t let it wander or you’ll get subject motion blur). Keep your shutter speed up.

Remain aware of your depth of field. You’ll often have enough DOF so that you can let off of the autofocus as the bird hits the water (so that the focal plane doesn’t wander due to the splash). Back button focus helps with this, but you can also program a button to Stop Focus if that’s your thing. We’re fortunate that an osprey’s dive is so vertical

Thanks. Yes, I know all this, I am pretty experienced in this type of BIF and have configured BBF (actually 3 button BBF) for my R6, and do prefocusing on estimated place of hit if applicable etc..  I was just wondering if there is any difference R6 vs R6 mkii - but i assume it is hard to see as - like you say - this type of BIF in hard.

2. trying to focus to a bearded tit in the middle of reeds. Any comment whether mk2 is any better?

I haven’t been out in the bush birding with my R6ii yet (my R5 is assigned this duty). From my experience shooting people (and sports) with the R6 and R6ii, I’d suspect that the mk2’s AF would be slightly improved for birding. The way I shoot, the increased options for AF areas don’t really come into play for birding (for people, bigtime).

A couple of techniques that may help with birds (literally) in the bush: Turn off Exposure Simulation in dark habitats. This brightens the image that the AF has to work with and improves subject recognition and acquisition. Second, put the camera in 1.6x Crop Mode. This also helps with (especially eye) AF recognition and acquisition on distant and/or partially obscured subjects. I keep “Aspect Ratio” programmed to the “Set” button for easy access.

See if any of this helps the next time you’re out. Best of luck!

R2

Franz Kerschbaum wrote:

I would suggest to better invest in a second body, namely the R7 for your purpose!

That R7 is a very sensible suggestion.  Another suggestion would be to look for a good used R5 body.  For deeper cropping you will really need more MP - either 45MP full frame or 33MP crop.  Going from 20 to 24MP will make very little difference.

steeldrake wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

steeldrake wrote:

And finally if you have the experience, is the AF and animal/bird tracking really noticeable better in mk2?

Yes, better subject detection

With R6 AF often struggles in these scenarios

I think first you need to verify that all of your settings are optimized for the kind of shooting that you’re doing. It takes a while to develop a good setup and good technique.

1. while shooting fishing Ospreys the background changes quickly when following the bird and water splashes all over when the bird hits water.

Diving ospreys are indeed HARD. Follow that sucker as perfectly as you can, keeping it in exactly the same location in the viewfinder (don’t let it wander or you’ll get subject motion blur). Keep your shutter speed up.

Remain aware of your depth of field. You’ll often have enough DOF so that you can let off of the autofocus as the bird hits the water (so that the focal plane doesn’t wander due to the splash). Back button focus helps with this, but you can also program a button to Stop Focus if that’s your thing. We’re fortunate that an osprey’s dive is so vertical

Thanks. Yes, I know all this, I am pretty experienced in this type of BIF and have configured BBF (actually 3 button BBF) for my R6, and do prefocusing on estimated place of hit if applicable etc.. I was just wondering if there is any difference R6 vs R6 mkii - but i assume it is hard to see as - like you say - this type of BIF in hard.

OK, good! Sounds like you have the technique down pat.

I haven’t taken the R6ii birding yet (as I have an R5), so I can’t compare with the R6 for birding. I have shot sports with the R6ii though, and I think it does a little better than the R6 in that regard. The biggest difference between the two though is the AF configurability.

R2