R6 II vs Fujifilm X-H2S

[joesfbay]

I also posted this in the Fujifilm X forum.


Asking any members who have used both cameras for their opinions. I have started to shoot some night sports games. It's my children's sports and not professional. My question is would I see much improvement in image quality (mainly noise) and auto-focus improvement by going from X-H2S to a Canon R6 II.

My current Fuji set up is X-H2S, 16-55mm F2.8, 50-140mm F2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter.

Considering Canon R6 II, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8.

I think I understand the main differences between two set up but just don't have any Canon R-series experience. X-H2S is cropped stacked-sensor. Canon R6 is full-frame non-stack. With the Canon 70-200mm, I don't have an option to use their teleconverter.

Canon is running a pretty good holiday discount right now. If I switch, this would be a good time.

Appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

I also posted this in the Fujifilm X forum.

Asking any members who have used both cameras for their opinions. I have started to shoot some night sports games. It's my children's sports and not professional. My question is would I see much improvement in image quality (mainly noise) and auto-focus improvement by going from X-H2S to a Canon R6 II.

My current Fuji set up is X-H2S, 16-55mm F2.8, 50-140mm F2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter.

Considering Canon R6 II, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8.

I think I understand the main differences between two set up but just don't have any Canon R-series experience. X-H2S is cropped stacked-sensor. Canon R6 is full-frame non-stack. With the Canon 70-200mm, I don't have an option to use their teleconverter.

Canon is running a pretty good holiday discount right now. If I switch, this would be a good time.

Appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

I don't have the Fuji, but I can tell you that the R6II has simply superb AF, especially for sports, and terrific low light performance. And the RF 70-200 F2.8 is as good as the best lenses available in that range (and lighter and smaller than others). I just got an email from Canon Pricewatch advertising a street price of $1999 for the R6II. If I didn't already own it, I'd be jumping on that offer. You can find that deal by going to their website. I've bought several pieces of equipment over the years through that route, including my R6II (in February) and my RF 50 F1.2L (a couple of weeks ago). It's always been new equipment with full warranty, and usually free shipping and no tax, from Canada.

 

[José B]

I also posted this in the Fujifilm X forum.

Asking any members who have used both cameras for their opinions. I have started to shoot some night sports games. It's my children's sports and not professional. My question is would I see much improvement in image quality (mainly noise) and auto-focus improvement by going from X-H2S to a Canon R6 II.

My current Fuji set up is X-H2S, 16-55mm F2.8, 50-140mm F2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter.

Considering Canon R6 II, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8.

I think I understand the main differences between two set up but just don't have any Canon R-series experience. X-H2S is cropped stacked-sensor. Canon R6 is full-frame non-stack. With the Canon 70-200mm, I don't have an option to use their teleconverter.

Canon is running a pretty good holiday discount right now. If I switch, this would be a good time.

Appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

I don't have the Fuji but I do some sports (outdoor tennis and indoor volleyball) with both Canon R6MKII and Sony A6700. My question to you is how's the keeper rate of the Fuji in terms of sports? Unless you are missing potential memorable shots it will be tough to replace a camera with a stacked sensor for unstacked one if you shoot a lot of sports.

Having said the above I often use R6MKII's electronic shutter when shooting sports and movement shots. I have yet to encounter any distortion and I agree with most of reviewers of the camera that the rolling shutter is well controlled.

As to the APS-C A6700 it's similar to the R6MKII, the tracking ability is superb. There's a bit of distortion in some of the images when using ES for sports. As to the noise, it cleans up silky smooth with today's software (Adobe RAW, DXO PL 7 Elite and Topaz AI).

Good luck with whatever decision you make.

 

[Ephemeris]

I also posted this in the Fujifilm X forum.

Asking any members who have used both cameras for their opinions. I have started to shoot some night sports games. It's my children's sports and not professional. My question is would I see much improvement in image quality (mainly noise) and auto-focus improvement by going from X-H2S to a Canon R6 II.

My current Fuji set up is X-H2S, 16-55mm F2.8, 50-140mm F2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter.

Considering Canon R6 II, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8.

I think I understand the main differences between two set up but just don't have any Canon R-series experience. X-H2S is cropped stacked-sensor. Canon R6 is full-frame non-stack. With the Canon 70-200mm, I don't have an option to use their teleconverter.

Canon is running a pretty good holiday discount right now. If I switch, this would be a good time.

Appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

I don't have the Fuji, but I can tell you that the R6II has simply superb AF, especially for sports, and terrific low light performance. And the RF 70-200 F2.8 is as good as the best lenses available in that range (and lighter and smaller than others). I just got an email from Canon Pricewatch advertising a street price of $1999 for the R6II. If I didn't already own it, I'd be jumping on that offer. You can find that deal by going to their website. I've bought several pieces of equipment over the years through that route, including my R6II (in February) and my RF 50 F1.2L (a couple of weeks ago). It's always been new equipment with full warranty, and usually free shipping and no tax, from Canada.

 

[Migralda]

I previously owned xt2 and xt4 before recently swapping from a Fuji XH2 (not s) to an R6mk11. The main reasons were poor low light performance from the 40 megapixel sensor and poor autofocus hit rate.

Both have improved dramatically, I agree with the lack of 3rd party lens comments but apart from the cost of Canon lenses I'm more than happy.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

I also posted this in the Fujifilm X forum.

Asking any members who have used both cameras for their opinions. I have started to shoot some night sports games. It's my children's sports and not professional. My question is would I see much improvement in image quality (mainly noise) and auto-focus improvement by going from X-H2S to a Canon R6 II.

My current Fuji set up is X-H2S, 16-55mm F2.8, 50-140mm F2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter.

Considering Canon R6 II, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8.

I think I understand the main differences between two set up but just don't have any Canon R-series experience. X-H2S is cropped stacked-sensor. Canon R6 is full-frame non-stack. With the Canon 70-200mm, I don't have an option to use their teleconverter.

Canon is running a pretty good holiday discount right now. If I switch, this would be a good time.

Appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

I don't have the Fuji, but I can tell you that the R6II has simply superb AF, especially for sports, and terrific low light performance. And the RF 70-200 F2.8 is as good as the best lenses available in that range (and lighter and smaller than others). I just got an email from Canon Pricewatch advertising a street price of $1999 for the R6II. If I didn't already own it, I'd be jumping on that offer. You can find that deal by going to their website. I've bought several pieces of equipment over the years through that route, including my R6II (in February) and my RF 50 F1.2L (a couple of weeks ago). It's always been new equipment with full warranty, and usually free shipping and no tax, from Canada.

The EF 70-200 F2.8 (all versions) is fully compatible with Teleconverters.

I know. I've owned two of them, and used them both with 1.4X and 2X converters. But, for me at least, upgrading to the RF version is well worth it. The size and weight savings are significant. And I have longer lenses for when I want more than 200mm. The RF 70-200 is simply a marvel of optical and physical engineering.

 

[Ephemeris]

I also posted this in the Fujifilm X forum.

Asking any members who have used both cameras for their opinions. I have started to shoot some night sports games. It's my children's sports and not professional. My question is would I see much improvement in image quality (mainly noise) and auto-focus improvement by going from X-H2S to a Canon R6 II.

My current Fuji set up is X-H2S, 16-55mm F2.8, 50-140mm F2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter.

Considering Canon R6 II, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8.

I think I understand the main differences between two set up but just don't have any Canon R-series experience. X-H2S is cropped stacked-sensor. Canon R6 is full-frame non-stack. With the Canon 70-200mm, I don't have an option to use their teleconverter.

Canon is running a pretty good holiday discount right now. If I switch, this would be a good time.

Appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

I don't have the Fuji, but I can tell you that the R6II has simply superb AF, especially for sports, and terrific low light performance. And the RF 70-200 F2.8 is as good as the best lenses available in that range (and lighter and smaller than others). I just got an email from Canon Pricewatch advertising a street price of $1999 for the R6II. If I didn't already own it, I'd be jumping on that offer. You can find that deal by going to their website. I've bought several pieces of equipment over the years through that route, including my R6II (in February) and my RF 50 F1.2L (a couple of weeks ago). It's always been new equipment with full warranty, and usually free shipping and no tax, from Canada.

The EF 70-200 F2.8 (all versions) is fully compatible with Teleconverters.

I know. I've owned two of them, and used them both with 1.4X and 2X converters. But, for me at least, upgrading to the RF version is well worth it. The size and weight savings are significant. And I have longer lenses for when I want more than 200mm. The RF 70-200 is simply a marvel of optical and physical engineering.

Is it? They can't even make it compatible with an extender. Seems like a step backwards as it's missing a key party trick.

I mentioned it due to the 50-140 with Tele on a crop.

A 1.4x on a 70-200 would seem to have some comparison.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[joesfbay]

I also posted this in the Fujifilm X forum.

Asking any members who have used both cameras for their opinions. I have started to shoot some night sports games. It's my children's sports and not professional. My question is would I see much improvement in image quality (mainly noise) and auto-focus improvement by going from X-H2S to a Canon R6 II.

My current Fuji set up is X-H2S, 16-55mm F2.8, 50-140mm F2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter.

Considering Canon R6 II, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8.

I think I understand the main differences between two set up but just don't have any Canon R-series experience. X-H2S is cropped stacked-sensor. Canon R6 is full-frame non-stack. With the Canon 70-200mm, I don't have an option to use their teleconverter.

Canon is running a pretty good holiday discount right now. If I switch, this would be a good time.

Appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

I don't have the Fuji, but I can tell you that the R6II has simply superb AF, especially for sports, and terrific low light performance. And the RF 70-200 F2.8 is as good as the best lenses available in that range (and lighter and smaller than others). I just got an email from Canon Pricewatch advertising a street price of $1999 for the R6II. If I didn't already own it, I'd be jumping on that offer. You can find that deal by going to their website. I've bought several pieces of equipment over the years through that route, including my R6II (in February) and my RF 50 F1.2L (a couple of weeks ago). It's always been new equipment with full warranty, and usually free shipping and no tax, from Canada.

The EF 70-200 F2.8 (all versions) is fully compatible with Teleconverters.

I know. I've owned two of them, and used them both with 1.4X and 2X converters. But, for me at least, upgrading to the RF version is well worth it. The size and weight savings are significant. And I have longer lenses for when I want more than 200mm. The RF 70-200 is simply a marvel of optical and physical engineering.

Is it? They can't even make it compatible with an extender. Seems like a step backwards as it's missing a key party trick.

I mentioned it due to the 50-140 with Tele on a crop.

A 1.4x on a 70-200 would seem to have some comparison.

I would lose the 1.4x about 300mm equivalent with the Canon RF not compatible with the 1.4x teleconverters. I do use the 1.4x on the Fujifilm 50-140 (x1.5 crop factor).

 

[David Franklin]

But, for me at least, upgrading to the RF version is well worth it. The size and weight savings are significant. And I have longer lenses for when I want more than 200mm. The RF 70-200 is simply a marvel of optical and physical engineering.

I completely agree. The difference in weight, size when not fully extended and storage size is very significant, and it is at least as good, optically, mechanically and in balanced handling, as the best of the previous versions. I also have longer lenses that I use, and don't need TC's for that. I would never give up my RF 70-200 f/2.8 for a non-extending version, unless it was as small and light with the same constant aperture, but such a lens will likely never exist, at least until some heretofore unknown technological breakthrough occurs. In the meantime, I am enjoying this current RF lens.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

I also posted this in the Fujifilm X forum.

Asking any members who have used both cameras for their opinions. I have started to shoot some night sports games. It's my children's sports and not professional. My question is would I see much improvement in image quality (mainly noise) and auto-focus improvement by going from X-H2S to a Canon R6 II.

My current Fuji set up is X-H2S, 16-55mm F2.8, 50-140mm F2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter.

Considering Canon R6 II, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8.

I think I understand the main differences between two set up but just don't have any Canon R-series experience. X-H2S is cropped stacked-sensor. Canon R6 is full-frame non-stack. With the Canon 70-200mm, I don't have an option to use their teleconverter.

Canon is running a pretty good holiday discount right now. If I switch, this would be a good time.

Appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

I don't have the Fuji, but I can tell you that the R6II has simply superb AF, especially for sports, and terrific low light performance. And the RF 70-200 F2.8 is as good as the best lenses available in that range (and lighter and smaller than others). I just got an email from Canon Pricewatch advertising a street price of $1999 for the R6II. If I didn't already own it, I'd be jumping on that offer. You can find that deal by going to their website. I've bought several pieces of equipment over the years through that route, including my R6II (in February) and my RF 50 F1.2L (a couple of weeks ago). It's always been new equipment with full warranty, and usually free shipping and no tax, from Canada.

The EF 70-200 F2.8 (all versions) is fully compatible with Teleconverters.

I know. I've owned two of them, and used them both with 1.4X and 2X converters. But, for me at least, upgrading to the RF version is well worth it. The size and weight savings are significant. And I have longer lenses for when I want more than 200mm. The RF 70-200 is simply a marvel of optical and physical engineering.

Is it?

Yes it is. Used one, have you?

They can't even make it compatible with an extender. Seems like a step backwards as it's missing a key party trick.

No tricks here, just an amazing lens. But feel free to keep bashing things you have no experience with. That’s par for the course here.

I mentioned it due to the 50-140 with Tele on a crop.

A 1.4x on a 70-200 would seem to have some comparison.

 

[Sittatunga]

...They can't even make it compatible with an extender. Seems like a step backwards as it's missing a key party trick.

A party trick wouldn't be a party trick if it were useful, it would be commonplace. An easily portable 70-200mm f/2.8 is something new.

I mentioned it due to the 50-140 with Tele on a crop.

A 1.4x on a 70-200 would seem to have some comparison.

I would lose the 1.4x about 300mm equivalent with the Canon RF not compatible with the 1.4x teleconverters. I do use the 1.4x on the Fujifilm 50-140 (x1.5 crop factor).

That would be the equivalent of 105-300mm f/6 (⅓ stop slower to ½ of a stop faster over that range of the RF 100-400mm), taking the Fujifilm 1.5× crop factor into account. And it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than either the RF 70-200mm or 100-400mm lenses, though the lens plus TC is smaller than the pair of Canon lenses, and the outfit is ⅔ the price. It looks as if you get what you pay for in this case. Or at least, you don't get what you don't pay for.

I have the 100-400mm and am debating whether I need a 70-200mm as well. The thing is, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my mount adapter + my EF Extender 1.4 together come to slightly, but noticeably, more weight than the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my RF 100-400mm together. I'm also wondering whether there would be any occasions where I would need 70-200mm and 100-280mm or 140-400mm at the same time.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

...They can't even make it compatible with an extender. Seems like a step backwards as it's missing a key party trick.

A party trick wouldn't be a party trick if it were useful, it would be commonplace. An easily portable 70-200mm f/2.8 is something new.

I mentioned it due to the 50-140 with Tele on a crop.

A 1.4x on a 70-200 would seem to have some comparison.

I would lose the 1.4x about 300mm equivalent with the Canon RF not compatible with the 1.4x teleconverters. I do use the 1.4x on the Fujifilm 50-140 (x1.5 crop factor).

That would be the equivalent of 105-300mm f/6 (⅓ stop slower to ½ of a stop faster over that range of the RF 100-400mm), taking the Fujifilm 1.5× crop factor into account. And it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than either the RF 70-200mm or 100-400mm lenses, though the lens plus TC is smaller than the pair of Canon lenses, and the outfit is ⅔ the price. It looks as if you get what you pay for in this case. Or at least, you don't get what you don't pay for.

I have the 100-400mm and am debating whether I need a 70-200mm as well. The thing is, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my mount adapter + my EF Extender 1.4 together come to slightly, but noticeably, more weight than the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my RF 100-400mm together. I'm also wondering whether there would be any occasions where I would need 70-200mm and 100-280mm or 140-400mm at the same time.

Good summary. I would take the RF 100-400 on the R6II over the 50-140 plus 1.4X converter on the Fuji any day of the week.

 

[Ephemeris]

I also posted this in the Fujifilm X forum.

Asking any members who have used both cameras for their opinions. I have started to shoot some night sports games. It's my children's sports and not professional. My question is would I see much improvement in image quality (mainly noise) and auto-focus improvement by going from X-H2S to a Canon R6 II.

My current Fuji set up is X-H2S, 16-55mm F2.8, 50-140mm F2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter.

Considering Canon R6 II, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8.

I think I understand the main differences between two set up but just don't have any Canon R-series experience. X-H2S is cropped stacked-sensor. Canon R6 is full-frame non-stack. With the Canon 70-200mm, I don't have an option to use their teleconverter.

Canon is running a pretty good holiday discount right now. If I switch, this would be a good time.

Appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

I don't have the Fuji, but I can tell you that the R6II has simply superb AF, especially for sports, and terrific low light performance. And the RF 70-200 F2.8 is as good as the best lenses available in that range (and lighter and smaller than others). I just got an email from Canon Pricewatch advertising a street price of $1999 for the R6II. If I didn't already own it, I'd be jumping on that offer. You can find that deal by going to their website. I've bought several pieces of equipment over the years through that route, including my R6II (in February) and my RF 50 F1.2L (a couple of weeks ago). It's always been new equipment with full warranty, and usually free shipping and no tax, from Canada.

The EF 70-200 F2.8 (all versions) is fully compatible with Teleconverters.

I know. I've owned two of them, and used them both with 1.4X and 2X converters. But, for me at least, upgrading to the RF version is well worth it. The size and weight savings are significant. And I have longer lenses for when I want more than 200mm. The RF 70-200 is simply a marvel of optical and physical engineering.

Is it?

Yes it is. Used one, have you?

Yes. No ability to include a Tele converter, optical improvements Vs the last of the EF system is difficult to see. I'd perhaps see mildly backward. So optically not better, and no Tele. Not a good start for so much cash.

On the plus side. AF is acoustically quieter which is helpful for some video, and the time to first acquisition appears quicker. Improvements for tracking I don't see but that first acquisition is faster. Is focus more accurate, I haven't seen this either.

So if the predecessor was and is marvelous then this is less so.

They can't even make it compatible with an extender. Seems like a step backwards as it's missing a key party trick.

No tricks here, just an amazing lens. But feel free to keep bashing things you have no experience with. That’s par for the course here.

You asked me only a few moments ago if I had used one. I have, more than one. Now suddenly you already know the answer but sadly got it wrong?

Bit unpleasant fella don't you think?

What is par for what course (I don't play golf).

To be blunt Alistair this reaction is unacceptable. It's rude, inaccurate and unfriendly.

I have good, measurable and demonstrable reasons why I don't think a replacement lens is not a marvel. There is no emotion in this, just follow just process. Why has this upset you? I don't know and I do not suggest for one second the benefits you see are not real. You mention it's size. For sure in a camera bag it can be small(er) but how much smaller is it at 200mm with lens hood? What's the ratio to the EF? That's a fixed number without emotion.

Poor show.

I mentioned it due to the 50-140 with Tele on a crop.

A 1.4x on a 70-200 would seem to have some comparison.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[Ephemeris]

...They can't even make it compatible with an extender. Seems like a step backwards as it's missing a key party trick.

A party trick wouldn't be a party trick if it were useful, it would be commonplace. An easily portable 70-200mm f/2.8 is something new.

If it was a step forward it wouldn't be a party trick. It was easily portable before so I don't quite follow. The ef f4 is 750g, more than 25% less than the RF F2.8.

I mentioned it due to the 50-140 with Tele on a crop.

A 1.4x on a 70-200 would seem to have some comparison.

I would lose the 1.4x about 300mm equivalent with the Canon RF not compatible with the 1.4x teleconverters. I do use the 1.4x on the Fujifilm 50-140 (x1.5 crop factor).

That would be the equivalent of 105-300mm f/6 (⅓ stop slower to ½ of a stop faster over that range of the RF 100-400mm), taking the Fujifilm 1.5× crop factor into account.

Is the Fuji not the same size sensor as the R7 or are they slightly different? (Small digression).

And it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than either the RF 70-200mm or 100-400mm lenses, though the lens plus TC is smaller than the pair of Canon lenses, and the outfit is ⅔ the price. It looks as if you get what you pay for in this case. Or at least, you don't get what you don't pay for.

In what sense sorry?

The background to the discussion is the wish to move from R5 to R7. So why not move to Fuji? And then why not to 200MP Samsung and a spotting scope (couldn't think of anything further to the right).

I have the 100-400mm and am debating whether I need a 70-200mm as well. The thing is, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my mount adapter + my EF Extender 1.4 together come to slightly, but noticeably, more weight than the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my RF 100-400mm together. I'm also wondering whether there would be any occasions where I would need 70-200mm and 100-280mm or 140-400mm at the same time.

So we use the ef 70-200 2.8 and 100-400II both with and without extenders a lot. The RF100-500 is much lighter, made closer to the body but haven't immediately thought it's a big reason to have it. Being able to move across such a ratio of focal lengths is helpful to us. Loosing light is a problem.

100-300f2.8 with built in Tele may solve it but doesn't exist.

I think your self question is really key to you. It always ends up quite personal, requirements based and not just about specifications of equipment.

 

[Sittatunga]

...They can't even make it compatible with an extender. Seems like a step backwards as it's missing a key party trick.

A party trick wouldn't be a party trick if it were useful, it would be commonplace. An easily portable 70-200mm f/2.8 is something new.

If it was a step forward it wouldn't be a party trick. It was easily portable before so I don't quite follow. The ef f4 is 750g

780g according to Canon, plus the weight of the adapter if you want to use it on an R6 II.

, more than 25% less than the RF F2.8.

Less than a sixth lighter, 50mm longer at 70mm and half the speed.

The EF f/2.8 lens mounted on an R series camera is 75mm longer and 530g heavier than the RF equivalent. If that's easily portable, then the RF lens is ultraportable. The EF f/4 lens is 77mm longer and 180g (25%) heavier on the camera than the RF f/4 lens, but that's irrelevant as the OP wanted an improvement on the Fuji kit not a near equivalent.

I mentioned it due to the 50-140 with Tele on a crop.

A 1.4x on a 70-200 would seem to have some comparison.

I would lose the 1.4x about 300mm equivalent with the Canon RF not compatible with the 1.4x teleconverters. I do use the 1.4x on the Fujifilm 50-140 (x1.5 crop factor).

That would be the equivalent of 105-300mm f/6 (⅓ stop slower to ½ of a stop faster over that range of the RF 100-400mm), taking the Fujifilm 1.5× crop factor into account.

Is the Fuji not the same size sensor as the R7 or are they slightly different? (Small digression).

23.5×15.6mm instead of 22.3×14.9mm, but the OP wasn't considering the R7. (The R6 II the OP was considering is within mm of the size of the X and 10g heavier.)

And it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than either the RF 70-200mm or 100-400mm lenses, though the lens plus TC is smaller than the pair of Canon lenses, and the outfit is ⅔ the price. It looks as if you get what you pay for in this case. Or at least, you don't get what you don't pay for.

In what sense sorry?

The background to the discussion is the wish to move from R5 to R7.

The title of the thread is R6 II vs Fujifilm X-H2S.

So why not move to Fuji? And then why not to 200MP Samsung and a spotting scope (couldn't think of anything further to the right).

The title of the thread is R6 II vs Fujifilm X-H2S.

I have the 100-400mm and am debating whether I need a 70-200mm as well. The thing is, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my mount adapter + my EF Extender 1.4 together come to slightly, but noticeably, more weight than the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my RF 100-400mm together. I'm also wondering whether there would be any occasions where I would need 70-200mm and 100-280mm or 140-400mm at the same time.

So we use the ef 70-200 2.8 and 100-400II both with and without extenders a lot. The RF100-500 is much lighter, made closer to the body but haven't immediately thought it's a big reason to have it. Being able to move across such a ratio of focal lengths is helpful to us. Loosing light is a problem.

100-300f2.8 with built in Tele may solve it but doesn't exist.

I think your self question is really key to you. It always ends up quite personal, requirements based and not just about specifications of equipment.

 

[Ephemeris]

...They can't even make it compatible with an extender. Seems like a step backwards as it's missing a key party trick.

A party trick wouldn't be a party trick if it were useful, it would be commonplace. An easily portable 70-200mm f/2.8 is something new.

If it was a step forward it wouldn't be a party trick. It was easily portable before so I don't quite follow. The ef f4 is 750g

780g according to Canon, plus the weight of the adapter if you want to use it on an R6 II.

That's essentially what I said. I don't think the type of R camera makes a difference. It's still significantly less than 1070g of the RF.

1000 to 750 is about 25%.

, more than 25% less than the RF F2.8.

Less than a sixth lighter, 50mm longer at 70mm and half the speed.

Your point was about weight and progress. It's heavier, by quite a bit.

At 200mm is is a great deal smaller? No.

The EF f/2.8 lens mounted on an R series camera is 75mm longer and 530g heavier than the RF equivalent. If that's easily portable, then the RF lens is ultraportable.

And the f4 is in the much better world. So why wouldn't I use that if the weight is the decider?

The EF f/4 lens is 77mm longer and 180g (25%) heavier on the camera than the RF f/4 lens, but that's irrelevant as the OP wanted an improvement on the Fuji kit not a near equivalent.

My point is to provide reflection regarding your comment about the advanced of this lens. I disagree, and can continue to provide verifiable evidence.

One thing that F4 70-200 Ef can do, aside from being lighter is be 210mm, or 280mm.

It can't be as short in physical packaway size as the RF lens.

It is much less expensive.

The RF world has gaps, I hope the filling continues.

I mentioned it due to the 50-140 with Tele on a crop.

A 1.4x on a 70-200 would seem to have some comparison.

I would lose the 1.4x about 300mm equivalent with the Canon RF not compatible with the 1.4x teleconverters. I do use the 1.4x on the Fujifilm 50-140 (x1.5 crop factor).

That would be the equivalent of 105-300mm f/6 (⅓ stop slower to ½ of a stop faster over that range of the RF 100-400mm), taking the Fujifilm 1.5× crop factor into account.

Is the Fuji not the same size sensor as the R7 or are they slightly different? (Small digression).

23.5×15.6mm instead of 22.3×14.9mm, but the OP wasn't considering the R7. (The R6 II the OP was considering is within mm of the size of the X and 10g heavier.)

I was interested why it isn't a 1.6x crop like the R7. What the OP asked isn't relevant to my question and I added the admission in brackets. That is still the case.

And it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than either the RF 70-200mm or 100-400mm lenses, though the lens plus TC is smaller than the pair of Canon lenses, and the outfit is ⅔ the price. It looks as if you get what you pay for in this case. Or at least, you don't get what you don't pay for.

In what sense sorry?

The background to the discussion is the wish to move from R5 to R7.

The title of the thread is R6 II vs Fujifilm X-H2S.

The thread has NOT rigidly stuck to the title in bold helps.

So why not move to Fuji? And then why not to 200MP Samsung and a spotting scope (couldn't think of anything further to the right).

The title of the thread is R6 II vs Fujifilm X-H2S.

That doesn't answer my question. The background is a number of members using the R7 for small birds.

Why not full frame plus 1.4x? ( Line the R62)

The Fuji, with 40MP has a pixel density advantage over both the above.

The furthest concept to the right I could think of is the pixel density of a 200MP Samsung sensor and as it does not have a lens mount then something a bird spotted should use.

The higher order question is what is the key driver? Pixel density or something else and that is very linked to this OPs question.

I have the 100-400mm and am debating whether I need a 70-200mm as well. The thing is, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my mount adapter + my EF Extender 1.4 together come to slightly, but noticeably, more weight than the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my RF 100-400mm together. I'm also wondering whether there would be any occasions where I would need 70-200mm and 100-280mm or 140-400mm at the same time.

So we use the ef 70-200 2.8 and 100-400II both with and without extenders a lot. The RF100-500 is much lighter, made closer to the body but haven't immediately thought it's a big reason to have it. Being able to move across such a ratio of focal lengths is helpful to us. Loosing light is a problem.

100-300f2.8 with built in Tele may solve it but doesn't exist.

I think your self question is really key to you. It always ends up quite personal, requirements based and not just about specifications of equipment.

 

[Sittatunga]

...They can't even make it compatible with an extender. Seems like a step backwards as it's missing a key party trick.

A party trick wouldn't be a party trick if it were useful, it would be commonplace. An easily portable 70-200mm f/2.8 is something new.

If it was a step forward it wouldn't be a party trick. It was easily portable before so I don't quite follow. The ef f4 is 750g

780g according to Canon, plus the weight of the adapter if you want to use it on an R6 II.

That's essentially what I said. I don't think the type of R camera makes a difference. It's still significantly less than 1070g of the RF.

Nearly 900g on the camera versus 1070g is just over 15% lighter, not more than 25%, but it's a different class of lens in many ways. (The OP didn't consider either f/4 lens, despite using a lens in the same class that's 300g heavier than the RF version.)

1000 to 750 is about 25%.

, more than 25% less than the RF F2.8.

Less than a sixth lighter, 50mm longer at 70mm and half the speed.

Your point was about weight and progress. It's heavier, by quite a bit.

At 200mm is is a great deal smaller? No.

Again, a different class of lens. How many people seriously considering a BMW M5 would prefer a 3 series? And why would anyone put it in a bag set to 200mm anyway?

The EF f/2.8 lens mounted on an R series camera is 75mm longer and 530g heavier than the RF equivalent. If that's easily portable, then the RF lens is ultraportable.

And the f4 is in the much better world. So why wouldn't I use that if the weight is the decider?

For you, using the EF lenses, weight doesn't even seem to be a consideration. I personally am more inclined to the f/4 RF lens but I'm not the OP and no longer have his interest in photographing children's sport.

The EF f/4 lens is 77mm longer and 180g (25%) heavier on the camera than the RF f/4 lens, but that's irrelevant as the OP wanted an improvement on the Fuji kit not a near equivalent.

My point is to provide reflection regarding your comment about the advanced of this lens. I disagree, and can continue to provide verifiable evidence.

One thing that F4 70-200 Ef can do, aside from being lighter is be 210mm, or 280mm.

It can't be as short in physical packaway size as the RF lens.

It is much less expensive.

The RF world has gaps, I hope the filling continues.

I mentioned it due to the 50-140 with Tele on a crop.

A 1.4x on a 70-200 would seem to have some comparison.

I would lose the 1.4x about 300mm equivalent with the Canon RF not compatible with the 1.4x teleconverters. I do use the 1.4x on the Fujifilm 50-140 (x1.5 crop factor).

That would be the equivalent of 105-300mm f/6 (⅓ stop slower to ½ of a stop faster over that range of the RF 100-400mm), taking the Fujifilm 1.5× crop factor into account.

Is the Fuji not the same size sensor as the R7 or are they slightly different? (Small digression).

23.5×15.6mm instead of 22.3×14.9mm, but the OP wasn't considering the R7. (The R6 II the OP was considering is within mm of the size of the X and 10g heavier.)

I was interested why it isn't a 1.6x crop like the R7. What the OP asked isn't relevant to my question and I added the admission in brackets. That is still the case.

Well now you know why it isn't a 1.6x crop - Canon famously have smaller APS-C sensors than everybody else. (Mind you, all APS-C sensors are smaller than the original 25×16.7mm APS-C crop from the APS film size.)

And it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than either the RF 70-200mm or 100-400mm lenses, though the lens plus TC is smaller than the pair of Canon lenses, and the outfit is ⅔ the price. It looks as if you get what you pay for in this case. Or at least, you don't get what you don't pay for.

In what sense sorry?

The background to the discussion is the wish to move from R5 to R7.

The title of the thread is R6 II vs Fujifilm X-H2S.

The thread has NOT rigidly stuck to the title in bold helps.

So why not move to Fuji? And then why not to 200MP Samsung and a spotting scope (couldn't think of anything further to the right).

The title of the thread is R6 II vs Fujifilm X-H2S.

That doesn't answer my question. The background is a number of members using the R7 for small birds.

The background is that the OP asked (and I quote) "I have started to shoot some night sports games. It's my children's sports and not professional. My question is would I see much improvement in image quality (mainly noise) and auto-focus improvement by going from X-H2S to a Canon R6 II.

My current Fuji set up is X-H2S, 16-55mm F2.8, 50-140mm F2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter."

It's not a question about moving to Fujifilm or a smartphone, it's a question about moving to the R6 II and RF (not EF) lenses.

Why not full frame plus 1.4x? ( Line the R62)

The Fuji, with 40MP has a pixel density advantage over both the above.

The furthest concept to the right I could think of is the pixel density of a 200MP Samsung sensor and as it does not have a lens mount then something a bird spotted should use.

The higher order question is what is the key driver? Pixel density or something else and that is very linked to this OPs question.

I have the 100-400mm and am debating whether I need a 70-200mm as well. The thing is, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my mount adapter + my EF Extender 1.4 together come to slightly, but noticeably, more weight than the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my RF 100-400mm together. I'm also wondering whether there would be any occasions where I would need 70-200mm and 100-280mm or 140-400mm at the same time.

So we use the ef 70-200 2.8 and 100-400II both with and without extenders a lot. The RF100-500 is much lighter, made closer to the body but haven't immediately thought it's a big reason to have it. Being able to move across such a ratio of focal lengths is helpful to us. Loosing light is a problem.

100-300f2.8 with built in Tele may solve it but doesn't exist.

I think your self question is really key to you. It always ends up quite personal, requirements based and not just about specifications of equipment.

 

[joesfbay]

Thanks to everyone who has responded to my questions. I was asking like-for-like replacement of my Fujifilm X-H2S set up with a Canon R6 II set up, with F2.8 zooms for both brands. The goal is going FF R6 II is to get better low light noise performance. I don't have any experience with the latest Canon AF and was hoping AF will improve too.

The Fujifilm system I have is adequate for most of my use cases. What triggered my question was the Canon holiday sales and I started to shoot night games. I'm just an amateur and I think I will be happy with either system. I am the limiting factor, not the cameras

 

[Ephemeris]

...They can't even make it compatible with an extender. Seems like a step backwards as it's missing a key party trick.

A party trick wouldn't be a party trick if it were useful, it would be commonplace. An easily portable 70-200mm f/2.8 is something new.

If it was a step forward it wouldn't be a party trick. It was easily portable before so I don't quite follow. The ef f4 is 750g

780g according to Canon, plus the weight of the adapter if you want to use it on an R6 II.

That's essentially what I said. I don't think the type of R camera makes a difference. It's still significantly less than 1070g of the RF.

Nearly 900g on the camera versus 1070g is just over 15% lighter, not more than 25%, but it's a different class of lens in many ways. (The OP didn't consider either f/4 lens, despite using a lens in the same class that's 300g heavier than the RF version.)

That's true and the lens is 25% lighter. Both show that the RF lens isn't the most lightweight (not my choice of metric) lens given an older lens is significantly lighter (more than 15% by your calculations using an adapter).

You will see the title is changed and my points are against the comment that this rf70-200 is some miracle of science. Categorically it's simple to show it isn't.

If the OP is after a miracle of science (I didn't raise this) then I don't believe this lens is an accurate representation of said miracle.

1000 to 750 is about 25%.

, more than 25% less than the RF F2.8.

Less than a sixth lighter, 50mm longer at 70mm and half the speed.

Your point was about weight and progress. It's heavier, by quite a bit.

At 200mm is is a great deal smaller? No.

Again, a different class of lens. How many people seriously considering a BMW M5 would prefer a 3 series? And why would anyone put it in a bag set to 200mm anyway?

With either the EF F2.8 or F4 one doesn't care what the focal length needs to be set to. You can walk around with it at any F length and the body doesn't change size. Miracle of science perhaps. So why anyway, because you can.

I have zero idea how BMW series fit into this conversation and look to be an inaccurate distraction.

The EF f/2.8 lens mounted on an R series camera is 75mm longer and 530g heavier than the RF equivalent. If that's easily portable, then the RF lens is ultraportable.

And the f4 is in the much better world. So why wouldn't I use that if the weight is the decider?

For you, using the EF lenses, weight doesn't even seem to be a consideration. I personally am more inclined to the f/4 RF lens but I'm not the OP and no longer have his interest in photographing children's sport.

Incorrect. The RF misses a vital feature which leaves me with little choice. That's it's inability to host a Tele.

The EF f/4 lens is 77mm longer and 180g (25%) heavier on the camera than the RF f/4 lens, but that's irrelevant as the OP wanted an improvement on the Fuji kit not a near equivalent.

My point is to provide reflection regarding your comment about the advanced of this lens. I disagree, and can continue to provide verifiable evidence.

One thing that F4 70-200 Ef can do, aside from being lighter is be 210mm, or 280mm.

It can't be as short in physical packaway size as the RF lens.

It is much less expensive.

The RF world has gaps, I hope the filling continues.

I mentioned it due to the 50-140 with Tele on a crop.

A 1.4x on a 70-200 would seem to have some comparison.

I would lose the 1.4x about 300mm equivalent with the Canon RF not compatible with the 1.4x teleconverters. I do use the 1.4x on the Fujifilm 50-140 (x1.5 crop factor).

That would be the equivalent of 105-300mm f/6 (⅓ stop slower to ½ of a stop faster over that range of the RF 100-400mm), taking the Fujifilm 1.5× crop factor into account.

Is the Fuji not the same size sensor as the R7 or are they slightly different? (Small digression).

23.5×15.6mm instead of 22.3×14.9mm, but the OP wasn't considering the R7. (The R6 II the OP was considering is within mm of the size of the X and 10g heavier.)

I was interested why it isn't a 1.6x crop like the R7. What the OP asked isn't relevant to my question and I added the admission in brackets. That is still the case.

Well now you know why it isn't a 1.6x crop - Canon famously have smaller APS-C sensors than everybody else. (Mind you, all APS-C sensors are smaller than the original 25×16.7mm APS-C crop from the APS film size.)

Looks to be a 10.3% difference in active pixel area. I wonder why the different choices.

And it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than either the RF 70-200mm or 100-400mm lenses, though the lens plus TC is smaller than the pair of Canon lenses, and the outfit is ⅔ the price. It looks as if you get what you pay for in this case. Or at least, you don't get what you don't pay for.

In what sense sorry?

The background to the discussion is the wish to move from R5 to R7.

The title of the thread is R6 II vs Fujifilm X-H2S.

The thread has NOT rigidly stuck to the title in bold helps.

So why not move to Fuji? And then why not to 200MP Samsung and a spotting scope (couldn't think of anything further to the right).

The title of the thread is R6 II vs Fujifilm X-H2S.

That doesn't answer my question. The background is a number of members using the R7 for small birds.

The background is that the OP asked (and I quote) "I have started to shoot some night sports games. It's my children's sports and not professional. My question is would I see much improvement in image quality (mainly noise) and auto-focus improvement by going from X-H2S to a Canon R6 II.

My current Fuji set up is X-H2S, 16-55mm F2.8, 50-140mm F2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter."

It's not a question about moving to Fujifilm or a smartphone, it's a question about moving to the R6 II and RF (not EF) lenses.

Okay, that's the start, and it hasbt rigidly stuck to that (not atypical). Pease post the title of the thread for me. Would you be so kind (and a bit less unpleasant).

Why not full frame plus 1.4x? ( Line the R62)

The Fuji, with 40MP has a pixel density advantage over both the above.

The furthest concept to the right I could think of is the pixel density of a 200MP Samsung sensor and as it does not have a lens mount then something a bird spotted should use.

The higher order question is what is the key driver? Pixel density or something else and that is very linked to this OPs question.

I have the 100-400mm and am debating whether I need a 70-200mm as well. The thing is, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my mount adapter + my EF Extender 1.4 together come to slightly, but noticeably, more weight than the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + my RF 100-400mm together. I'm also wondering whether there would be any occasions where I would need 70-200mm and 100-280mm or 140-400mm at the same time.

So we use the ef 70-200 2.8 and 100-400II both with and without extenders a lot. The RF100-500 is much lighter, made closer to the body but haven't immediately thought it's a big reason to have it. Being able to move across such a ratio of focal lengths is helpful to us. Loosing light is a problem.

100-300f2.8 with built in Tele may solve it but doesn't exist.

I think your self question is really key to you. It always ends up quite personal, requirements based and not just about specifications of equipment.

 

[Ephemeris]

Thanks to everyone who has responded to my questions. I was asking like-for-like replacement of my Fujifilm X-H2S set up with a Canon R6 II set up, with F2.8 zooms for both brands. The goal is going FF R6 II is to get better low light noise performance. I don't have any experience with the latest Canon AF and was hoping AF will improve too.

The Fujifilm system I have is adequate for most of my use cases. What triggered my question was the Canon holiday sales and I started to shoot night games. I'm just an amateur and I think I will be happy with either system. I am the limiting factor, not the cameras

One of the group members (John) often mentions the performance of the R7 Vs an R5 when thinking of longer focal lengths. I think the origin is pixel on the target Vs noise performance rather than a larger sensor is automatically better in low light.

The R6II has some tricks the R5 doesn't, and for that I have some envy. The RF range does allow the use of EF mount lenses (any brand) which is a neat helping hand.

It also just got a firmware update.

Loading…

rfshooters.com