I love my M6 ii but keep thinking the R7 may suit me better for birding

I've had my M6 ii for about a year now and I generally really like it. It is small, has a lot of dials for manual control and can likely take much better pictures than I've been able to get out of it.

But while it's fantastic for family pictures or for sightseeing (with the 22mm and 32mm), I spend most of my photography time taking pictures of birds (with Tamron 100-400), and this is where I wonder if I should seriously consider moving to the R7 in the near future.

I am a hobbyist and don't have a huge budget, so I doubt I could justify owning both cameras (though that'd be ideal), and when I go on expensive trips far away, I really want to ensure I can take the best possible pictures of the wildlife there since I likely won't come back.

But I am also wondering whether I am expecting too much from the R7. I understand that the AF is in a different league, but most of my pictures are of small, quick birds in foliage and slightly dark conditions - would it be drastically better in such situations to lock on target? Would the tracking be better when the bird moves around (e.g. kingfishers diving)?

I'd love to hear your experiences from using both cameras, both on what I could expect from an upgrade, but in particular on what I should not expect.

The M6 is such a neat little thing (can't emphasise the size factor enough) so I fear missing it if I do change...

Polisky wrote:

I've had my M6 ii for about a year now and I generally really like it. It is small, has a lot of dials for manual control and can likely take much better pictures than I've been able to get out of it.

But while it's fantastic for family pictures or for sightseeing (with the 22mm and 32mm), I spend most of my photography time taking pictures of birds (with Tamron 100-400), and this is where I wonder if I should seriously consider moving to the R7 in the near future.

I am a hobbyist and don't have a huge budget, so I doubt I could justify owning both cameras (though that'd be ideal), and when I go on expensive trips far away, I really want to ensure I can take the best possible pictures of the wildlife there since I likely won't come back.

But I am also wondering whether I am expecting too much from the R7. I understand that the AF is in a different league, but most of my pictures are of small, quick birds in foliage and slightly dark conditions - would it be drastically better in such situations to lock on target? Would the tracking be better when the bird moves around (e.g. kingfishers diving)?

I'd love to hear your experiences from using both cameras, both on what I could expect from an upgrade, but in particular on what I should not expect.

The M6 is such a neat little thing (can't emphasise the size factor enough) so I fear missing it if I do change...

So I have made the journey you are thinking of - via the R10 which I still really like and own.

The R7 is marginally better for static birds.

The R7 and R10 are far superior for birds in flight - both equally good AF  (with my lenses at least) - and handle better with larger lenses too.  I miss though only 2 control dials.  But the eye tracking AF is amazing for birding.

2nd hand trade in prices not great for the M6II now - I sold one but keeping one as I really like the 11-22, 32mm and also the tiny 15-45 - the RF 18-45 for me is a non starter.

So you might just find the R10 a good compromise and can keep then the M6II as well?  The R10 is excellent and the difference in resolution is not massive - about a 1.15x teleconverter needed on the R10 only to match the R7.  And the pixels do seem a bit cleaner and sharper on both the R7 and R10 - maybe a weaker anti aliasing filter?

How about M6II then on your current M glass - and R10 on your telephoto?

I think you have identified your quandary yourself.

The R7 is a great camera if you want state of the art AF. I bought one to replace my 7Dii for tracking fast moving jets at airshows and it really is excellent for that. So it will also be great for your BIF.

I wouldn't want to use my Canon 100-400 Lii lens on the M6ii as the balance is all wrong IMO.

However I love the size of my M6ii and lenses for general everyday photography.

I don't believe one size fits all and so I won't get rid of either system.

As KevinRA says above the second hand price you'd get selling your EF-M system won't be great so I'd keep it if you can.

Just my thoughts.

I’ve also been thinking about that switch, I use the m6ii for macro and occasionally birds in my case with the canon 100-400mk1

will the tamron work on the r7 via the ef-rf adaptor? Canon seems to be shutting down non canon glass, I assume my mk1 lens would also need replaced to get the most out of the new camera

I’m surprised what I can do with the m6, although it’s mostly birds on a branch I have got some good (middle sized) BIF pics, and that’s with the rear screen, I dont Have the viewfinder

i do have a high failure rate, eg 90%, but I was watching a bird utuber earlier tonight using the r7 and his rates were just as bad, and like me he was happy

but would I actually see better quality, or just have more keepers ?

What would be more useful for birds is more reach, and more light, the above would not do that, and more reach and light comes at a much higher price

if you switch please share some before and after pics…

Jim

I shot quite extensively with the M6ii + EF 100-400ii +/- 1.4x iii.

For perched and flitting birds the R7 is a little better, but I agree with the other posters that for BIFs it's a LOT better.

I'd also expect the R10 to be quite good for BIFs (same DIGIC X).  And you don't really need IBIS for birds.

R2

Polisky wrote:

I've had my M6 ii for about a year now and I generally really like it. It is small, has a lot of dials for manual control and can likely take much better pictures than I've been able to get out of it.

But while it's fantastic for family pictures or for sightseeing (with the 22mm and 32mm), I spend most of my photography time taking pictures of birds (with Tamron 100-400), and this is where I wonder if I should seriously consider moving to the R7 in the near future.

I am a hobbyist and don't have a huge budget, so I doubt I could justify owning both cameras (though that'd be ideal), and when I go on expensive trips far away, I really want to ensure I can take the best possible pictures of the wildlife there since I likely won't come back.

But I am also wondering whether I am expecting too much from the R7. I understand that the AF is in a different league, but most of my pictures are of small, quick birds in foliage and slightly dark conditions - would it be drastically better in such situations to lock on target? Would the tracking be better when the bird moves around (e.g. kingfishers diving)?

I'd love to hear your experiences from using both cameras, both on what I could expect from an upgrade, but in particular on what I should not expect.

The M6 is such a neat little thing (can't emphasise the size factor enough) so I fear missing it if I do change...

When you go for R7, how would you cover 22mm and 32mm that you are enjoying with M6?

If the coming trip is expensive, I would be happy to add the price of R7 in the trip expense.

jim mij wrote:

I’ve also been thinking about that switch, I use the m6ii for macro and occasionally birds in my case with the canon 100-400mk1

will the tamron work on the r7 via the ef-rf adaptor? Canon seems to be shutting down non canon glass, I assume my mk1 lens would also need replaced to get the most out of the new camera

The Sigma 100-400 seems to work OK on the R10 when I tried it - the EF lenses should hopefully be OK. May not be quite as accurate (pulsing reported in the sigma 150-600) than canon glass.   But my tests R10 plus 100-400 sigma were ok.

KevinRA wrote:

jim mij wrote:

I’ve also been thinking about that switch, I use the m6ii for macro and occasionally birds in my case with the canon 100-400mk1

will the tamron work on the r7 via the ef-rf adaptor? Canon seems to be shutting down non canon glass, I assume my mk1 lens would also need replaced to get the most out of the new camera

The Sigma 100-400 seems to work OK on the R10 when I tried it - the EF lenses should hopefully be OK. May not be quite as accurate (pulsing reported in the sigma 150-600) than canon glass. But my tests R10 plus 100-400 sigma were ok.

Thanks for the info Kevin

KevinRA wrote:

Polisky wrote:

So I have made the journey you are thinking of - via the R10 which I still really like and own.

The R7 is marginally better for static birds.

The R7 and R10 are far superior for birds in flight - both equally good AF (with my lenses at least) - and handle better with larger lenses too. I miss though only 2 control dials. But the eye tracking AF is amazing for birding.

2nd hand trade in prices not great for the M6II now - I sold one but keeping one as I really like the 11-22, 32mm and also the tiny 15-45 - the RF 18-45 for me is a non starter.

So you might just find the R10 a good compromise and can keep then the M6II as well? The R10 is excellent and the difference in resolution is not massive - about a 1.15x teleconverter needed on the R10 only to match the R7. And the pixels do seem a bit cleaner and sharper on both the R7 and R10 - maybe a weaker anti aliasing filter?

How about M6II then on your current M glass - and R10 on your telephoto?

Thank you for sharing your experiences, it is good to know that there is not that much improvement for static birds as I find that is where most of my frustration lies.

It's also a good point about the current prices - though I bought my M6ii secondhand as well, so I would perhaps not lose that much judging from some prices I'm seeing online. But then there's also the two M lenses and the EF M adapter, so I think it could cover a good chunk of the R7 costs - especially if I manage to find a used one at some point!

What holds me back from the R10 is not just the MP count, but the lack of other handy features for birding that I like in the M6ii, such as the high shutter speed. I was also thinking the weatherproofing of the R7 would be useful in certain situations.

How do you find the R10 relative to the R7 in that regard?

davesurrey wrote:

I think you have identified your quandary yourself.

The R7 is a great camera if you want state of the art AF. I bought one to replace my 7Dii for tracking fast moving jets at airshows and it really is excellent for that. So it will also be great for your BIF.

I wouldn't want to use my Canon 100-400 Lii lens on the M6ii as the balance is all wrong IMO.

However I love the size of my M6ii and lenses for general everyday photography.

I don't believe one size fits all and so I won't get rid of either system.

As KevinRA says above the second hand price you'd get selling your EF-M system won't be great so I'd keep it if you can.

Just my thoughts.

I agree there will likely be some loss for selling the M system, but it would probably still fetch a decent share of the R7's price I reckon.

A second practical issue is that I don't how I would prioritise between bringing either camera in situations where it would be impractical to take both (think e.g. carry-on luggage with weight and space limits). Apart from occasions where I know I wouldn't be doing any wildlife photography, I am sure I would struggle deciding between the perfect family-oriented M6 and the more wildlife-capable R system.

How do you prioritise in those type of situations when you have multiple camera systems?

lumenite wrote:

Polisky

When you go for R7, how would you cover 22mm and 32mm that you are enjoying with M6?

If the coming trip is expensive, I would be happy to add the price of R7 in the trip expense.

I'll be honest and say that I am not particularly keen about any particular focal lengths, so I am sure there would be some small-ish lens to cover for those needs (or if not, then hopefully Canon would introduce one at some point). But I am well aware that it won't ever be as practical and bang-for-the-buck as the small and great M system, so I am trying to figure out if it would be worth the compromise.

I suppose many people here on the forum kept their M system when buying into a new system and I am fully on board with that train of thought (who wouldn't want to keep it?), but with this post I was also wondering if there were anybody who traded it in and how they felt about it afterwards.

R2D2 wrote:

I shot quite extensively with the M6ii + EF 100-400ii +/- 1.4x iii.

For perched and flitting birds the R7 is a little better, but I agree with the other posters that for BIFs it's a LOT better.

I'd also expect the R10 to be quite good for BIFs (same DIGIC X). And you don't really need IBIS for birds.

R2

Thanks for your input, indeed seems people agree that the R7 is not that massive an improvement for static birds, which is really useful to know on its own.

Hypothetically, if you for some reason couldn't use anything but the M6ii for birding on some arbitrary occasion (say the R7 broke) would you be disappointed and know in advance that you'd miss a lot of good shots? Or would you be able to compensate somewhat through additional effort to compensate for the lesser AF?

Polisky wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

Polisky wrote:

So I have made the journey you are thinking of - via the R10 which I still really like and own.

The R7 is marginally better for static birds.

The R7 and R10 are far superior for birds in flight - both equally good AF (with my lenses at least) - and handle better with larger lenses too. I miss though only 2 control dials. But the eye tracking AF is amazing for birding.

2nd hand trade in prices not great for the M6II now - I sold one but keeping one as I really like the 11-22, 32mm and also the tiny 15-45 - the RF 18-45 for me is a non starter.

So you might just find the R10 a good compromise and can keep then the M6II as well? The R10 is excellent and the difference in resolution is not massive - about a 1.15x teleconverter needed on the R10 only to match the R7. And the pixels do seem a bit cleaner and sharper on both the R7 and R10 - maybe a weaker anti aliasing filter?

How about M6II then on your current M glass - and R10 on your telephoto?

Thank you for sharing your experiences, it is good to know that there is not that much improvement for static birds as I find that is where most of my frustration lies.

It's also a good point about the current prices - though I bought my M6ii secondhand as well, so I would perhaps not lose that much judging from some prices I'm seeing online. But then there's also the two M lenses and the EF M adapter, so I think it could cover a good chunk of the R7 costs - especially if I manage to find a used one at some point!

What holds me back from the R10 is not just the MP count, but the lack of other handy features for birding that I like in the M6ii, such as the high shutter speed. I was also thinking the weatherproofing of the R7 would be useful in certain situations.

How do you find the R10 relative to the R7 in that regard?

So the R10 goes to 1/4000s - electronic first curtain  I never shoot that fast - 1/2000 normally is fine for most flying birds.  Appreciate humming birds may benefit from 1/8000 but that is about that.  Otherwise R10 has just as good controls IMHO, just as good AF and the smaller buffer is not an issue in CRAW with a fast card.

The R10 survived dust well on safari - but not tested it with rain.  It would be no worse generally than M6II.  One of my M6II's did get a little crunchy on the controls though with fine dust.  R10 was fine.