The R5 still might be the better deal i.m.o. It gives you everything but an extra stop of AF sensitivity and 1/3th of a stop less high ISO noise.
Look, if you only have a slow zoom and you use it with a speedlite, that extra stop of AF sensitivity can be useful. However, when you own the f/2.0 zoom or when you're satisfied with primes, -6EV will do. Canon focuses wide open, so It only comes into play when you're using too high ISO values.
We're in agreement on all the above.
Yet, I'm still fascinated by the R3. I'm in no rush, but I am gravitating towards the R3 as I don't want the weight of the files, but, would like the extra oomph on ISO. Pricey and heavy though.
Side note, when did you pickup the R5 and M6 II? They're both awesome, btw.
Few months ago. I've younger kids now. I need the AF, I need that AF now, I want that IBIS, and I want more than 20Mp. Once in a life time crime.
The R5 turns my Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art into a sports lens. At f/2.0 the combo tracks my daughter running towards me until the frame is almost filled with head and shoulders. Absolutely awesome. IBIS saves me a stop with the 105 Art. I can also leave my IS primes at home. I can do almost everything with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8mkII, 50mm Art, and (depending on how much weight I'm willing to carry) either the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm or 105mm Art.
Love it.
Got the M6mkII for the 32mm (not convinced by that F 50mm f/1.8) and the 50-100 f/1.8 Art. Resale value of the f/1.8 zooms is pretty low. I also don't want to invest in big full frame wide angle stuff.
The 32 and M6 II are a superior combination than any RF 50 f/1.8 combination.
Was it you or someone else that thought the STM motor of the 32 was too slow?
Yes, that was me.
On the M6 II it’s workable in my book.
Still too slow sometimes for me. Tracking at longer distances and when movement is taking place for a while already is fine, but just after a subject starts moving it's still too late sometimes. Think of a case like a kid jumping off from something towards you, and you want to catch the "kid in flight". The closer to the camera, the more it can be a problem. The M6II is better than the M50 though, so yes, the body matters. However, with my Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art I never had AF responsiveness issues, even on the M50. And with that Sigma on my M6II it tracks kids on swings, slides, and everything without any problem, so the adapted third party zoom is definitely better for AF (and the IQ isn't too shabby either).
Compared to the 32mm the 50mm Art on the R5 is also more responsive, so at important moments I will use that combo. Face&eye recognition and stickyness of AF tracking is better than the M6II, so the R5 is used the most for shooting kids.
That R5 is a beast. How’s the colors though? SOOC JPEG was fine, but I found RAWS even in DPP4 got touchy at times.
I'm not too picky when it comes to colors, but the R left me wanting. The R5 is way better than the R for colors. The R5 is also better than the M6II (although the M6II is acceptable for me). It's possible the M50 is still a little bit more pleasing over all, but both the R5 and M50 are doing so well for colors at least for me it's hard to tell a difference.
Whenever possible I use the R5. I can't avoid harsh light conditions, and full frame wins here. Full frame isn't just about low light for me.
Agreed on all counts with color, if talking SOOC; identical experiences here.
My trouble is both the RAWs I have with my short time with the R5, and, the ones DPR has published, do not handle color fidelity well once edited, even (and especially) in DPP4. The R6 RAWs on the other hand, do. Both the R5 and R6 are frankly "magical" in SOOC colors though which is a real treat as that's how I felt about Canon's former offerings ala 5D Mark III and EOS M (original) and M2.
Actually after going over the RAWs from DPR from the R6, the resolution, when using built-in corrections in DPP4, and default sharpening, are quite good. I think some of my hangups were post processing as Popco is a big LR house and things like what lens is shot make a big difference as LR doesn't handle lens corrections or noise reduction as well as DPP4 and non-L lenses don't behave so well without them, and even some L lenses for that matter (RF 15-35, I'm looking at you and your corner performance uncorrected).
All to say, if the R3 comes in more then 20MP, say even 24MP, it looks like it could be a "winner" here. At 20MP though? Mmm, 20MP is a bit low for my tastebuds, even though frankly its pretty good; when I start to think it looks like my former G5X Mark II though (also 20MP), that's when I pause; you should not be thinking images out of a FF monster are comparable to a smartphone (as the images out of the G5X II were comparable to a smartphone; you had to post process them to get the most out of them, and even then, 20MP really showed up, or perhaps, 20MP 1" married to a point and shoot collapsible zoom lens ie not the highest resolver of resolution to begin with).
FF itself doesn't handle harsh lighting better so much as quality glass does. L glass really sings even in "bad" light. However, so does the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM, or Rokinon EF-M 50mm f/1.2, 21mm f/1.4, too. My RF 24-240 and RF 35 don't do so well in harsh lightning any more than an EF-M 18-150 or EF-M 22mm f/2 STM, but, my RF 28-70 f/2L, doesn't hesitate to take on bright backlit where the coatings keep the contrast up, cut down on flare/glare, and resolve contrast in low-contrast conditions really giving some pep to the step. I've noted those special lens coatings and contrast abilities reflected on MTF charts, arguably make harsh lighting more tolerable (the 32mm f/1.4 STM has SSC coatings and high resolution and contrast rendering for example). Now it so happens the FF RF format has access to more quality glass than the EF-M mount does, though; L glass is L glass with said 32mm being and outlier, and the 11-22 to some lesser degree. My former Rokinon also had this special "magic" too, just they were Manual focus which actually was "fun", and I got the hang of it, but, did result in occasional missed opportunities, and, wasn't so suitable for special events, think catered events of any kind where there is ALOT going on, but they were perhaps L like in rendering, even in the most harsh conditions.
