Thoughts on M6 Mark II or R8 for new small kit

[SHOT IN ROME]

I do not want to carry my FF Nikon anymore, and with the monster lenses it is just way too big and heavy. I will not carry it without a strong purpose.

I am looking for a new kit for two uses- daytime carry for random street shots, and more careful subtle or extreme night work where I would even carry a monopod if needed. I occasionally print 40 x 60. Dynamic range matters, intelligent tracking/focus etc. do not.

I was very excited about the relative cost and weight of the R50 APS-C with the new super lightweight RF-S 10-18, but after a night of tests I did not think it offered enough of an upgrade from my iPhone 14 Pro shooting large RAW at night. Sure, there was some detail improvement, but not enough, and it did not even handle light blooms much better. But then, in the past the APS-C on a Nikon and a Sony did not satisfy me either.

So I am wondering if the M6 Mark II might be *enough* of a bump beyond the 24 MP APS-C cameras, allowing me to stay small. Canon claims that they improved the sensor for the R7, but that camera is larger and heavier, and the detail may still not be there. So the next option is FF. I see that the R8 is quite small and with the RF 16mm and RF-S 10-18, I could stay very small.

Any comments/suggestions?

I am cross posting to both the M and R forums.

A small sample of legacy work can be found at https://www.cameronmcnall.com/foto

 

[Andy01]

With lens IS, I might use a monopod at night. Heck, I used to shoot with a tripod and Kodachrome 24 at night. The first time I used a nikkormat with a new 28mm and pressed the bulb, it stayed open forever, and then the shutter closed after what seemed an eternity. Kind of a life-changing event.

This was shot with R8 + RF 24-105L f4 - handheld - at ½ second. For anything much slower than this either a faster lens or tripod would be required. Fully zoomed you can see the individual bolts, so sharp enough for me for most purposes.

 

[JPAlbert]

The M6 is "the past".

The R8 is "the future"...

 

[smilerliu]

If you come from the Nikon camp, why not Z50II plus some of the Z DX lenses?

 

[R2D2]

I would like a lot of detail, mostly of still scenes, not concerned about motion. I am now living in Rome and want to return to walking around night work like I used to do, also no motion. I like a lot of detail, and not having bright lights blow out. Secondarily, I would like to carry a camera for unforeseen stuff, and i just know that when it gets too big, I will leave it at home. I have invested in the very best lens in the past to gain a stop of light, but now think that I can deal with slow lenses if they can give me the detail and contrast I want while being small. I think that this is inherently the idea of these new RF lens that Canon is bringing out.

Then skip the crop sensors and go for the R8. Process your RAWs with DxO to squeeze the most out of them. But make sure that you like the ergo and operation before buying, as Canon is quite different from Nikon.

Best of luck in your search!

R2

 

[SHOT IN ROME]

Well done, thanks for the original image.

 

[SHOT IN ROME]

I do not want to carry my FF Nikon anymore, and with the monster lenses it is just way too big and heavy. I will not carry it without a strong purpose.

I am looking for a new kit for two uses- daytime carry for random street shots, and more careful subtle or extreme night work where I would even carry a monopod if needed. I occasionally print 40 x 60. Dynamic range matters, intelligent tracking/focus etc. do not.

I was very excited about the relative cost and weight of the R50 APS-C with the new super lightweight RF-S 10-18, but after a night of tests I did not think it offered enough of an upgrade from my iPhone 14 Pro shooting large RAW at night.

I have a 14 Pro, although I have never really tried too hard to use it at night. I know that computational photography has improved outputs from phones, but I seriously doubt that a 14 Pro can produce results better than a well-shot and properly processed R50 (or R10) image, especially if using something like DxO. Perhaps if comparing out of camera (no processing) images and viewed on a small (phone) screen), but view a phone's night image on a 27" 4K screen and things usually look a bit lacking.

Sure, there was some detail improvement, but not enough, and it did not even handle light blooms much better. But then, in the past the APS-C on a Nikon and a Sony did not satisfy me either.

Are you shooting RAW (like your 14 Pro) or relying on out of camera JPEG ?

So I am wondering if the M6 Mark II might be *enough* of a bump beyond the 24 MP APS-C cameras, allowing me to stay small. Canon claims that they improved the sensor for the R7, but that camera is larger and heavier, and the detail may still not be there. So the next option is FF. I see that the R8 is quite small and with the RF 16mm and RF-S 10-18, I could stay very small.

I have both R10 (same sensor as R50, but lots of other improvements) and R8 and I would argue that in good light and similar or same lenses and settings, most people would struggle to pick the difference with some serious pixel peeping. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the newer Canon Canon APS-C sensors, even the 24Mp ones.

I might suggest that you would really struggle to pick the difference in detail between a R10, R7 or R8 image, all shot with the RF 15-30 (which I also have) - unless the lighting gets quite challenging, in which case the R8 will perform better.

Any comments/suggestions?

In general, R10 and R8 (and obviously R7) are a fair step up from M6 ii in overall capability, and obviously the RF (and RF-S) lenses have a growing range, especially with third party makers starting to come on board.

To some extent it depends on how important a few things are to you;

• Overall size & weight
• Importance of EVF
• Budget
• Is WA more important than reach ?

I am cross posting to both the M and R forums.

A small sample of legacy work can be found at https://www.cameronmcnall.com/foto

I wanted a smaller and lighter kit than my previous Canon 6D ii + "monster" (L series) lenses, and M5 + EF-M lenses, so I went with R10, R8, RF15-30, RF 24-105L & RF 100-400. This all fits in a Think Tank Retrospective 10 and weighs about 5.5kg. It gives me options for everything from a FF FoV equivalent of 15mm right up to 640mm. RF 15-30 is my least used lens.

In general, it is worth noting that R8 and R10 are essentially the same size and weight, but depending on which lenses you choose, the lenses dictate the differences. For example, R10 + RF-S 18-150 has a far larger range than R8 + RF 24-105 STM, but it is also smaller and lighter.

If, however, you plan to use the same lens, like RF 15-30 or RF 24 or 35 on whichever camera you choose, then the size and weight will be indistinguishable.

Bear in mind (obviously) that the RF 15-30 mention as being your ideal range is quite different on APS-C or FF - on a FF R8 it is obviously 15-30mm, which is super wide at 15mm and still relatively wide at 30mm, whereas on M6 ii, R10 or R7 it is equivalent to 24mm at wide end, which is reasonably wide, but not UWA, and 48mm at long end, which is a "standard" view.

So the same lens will produce quite different perspectives depending on whether you fit it to APS-C or FF body. Perhaps compare R10 + RF 15-30 with R8 + RF 24-50, or R10 + RF-S 10-18 with R8 + RF 15-30 (in which case R10 would be quite a bit smaller and lighter).

Yes, I do open up and adjust my own RAWs when I compare shots. My challenges are that I do in fact print and put up on my walls 40x60" prints, and the night shots do demand good light handling. I know all the tricks and have even lived with prints from an iphone 6. The R8 with the RF 15-30 is pretty ideal lens range for what I do, but I am certain that to get the best out of it I will have to use it at stopped down at least one stop, and even then, perhaps this glass will let me down?

 

[SHOT IN ROME]

If you come from the Nikon camp, why not Z50II plus some of the Z DX lenses?

I was super impressed when I saw some of the things Canon was doing, so that is how I got here. But someone mentioned Sony, and indeed, I see now that for a lot of money it has some enticing offerings. So I should look at Nikon as well. I like Nikon but I am fairly agnostic and have shot Pentax 6x7, Fuji 6x9, Hasselblad, Canon FF, Rollei, Sony APS-C. I have the means to buy anything, but I automatically resist the pricier options unless the need is overwhelming. I did just fine with my Nikon FE2's for over twenty years.

 

[Andy01]

The R8 with the RF 15-30 is pretty ideal lens range for what I do, but I am certain that to get the best out of it I will have to use it at stopped down at least one stop, and even then, perhaps this glass will let me down?

Here is a lab comparison of RF 15-30 with RF 15-35L f2.8, both at f5.6.

Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

To my thinking there probably isn't as big a difference as the price/size/weight differences might suggest, but this is just a lab test, so real world use is probably different. The f2.8 L isn't exactly a "small" lens though.

Another small-ish option might be the new RF 16-28 f2.8 STM - it actually seems more similar to the L f2.8 than RF 15-30.

Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Almost the same size & weight - slightly less zoom range though;

Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Compared to the Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM Lens

Compare the detailed specifications and detailed lab measurements of the Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens to the 1720

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[M4Mobility]

The M6 is "the past".

The R8 is "the future"...

For me they are both "the present".

 

[drsnoopy]

The M6 is "the past".

The R8 is "the future"...

For me they are both "the present".

 

[M4Mobility]

The M6 is "the past".

The R8 is "the future"...

For me they are both "the present".

The problem with buying used M6ii is you have no idea how long it will be before the on board battery fails. If you already have one, of course keep using it, but I wouldn’t countenance buying a used one at the prices they now go for - madness IMO.

I have both. So they are both "present" for me.

I just make sure my cameras are always stored with charged batteries. Never had any internal battery fail on any camera. I don't know what prices you are talking about. But the M6II is an excellent camera and there is nothing like it in the R system. So I understand if they are very popular.

--
- M4M
“I ain't afraid of no noise.”

 

[SHOT IN ROME]

The R8 with the RF 15-30 is pretty ideal lens range for what I do, but I am certain that to get the best out of it I will have to use it at stopped down at least one stop, and even then, perhaps this glass will let me down?

Here is a lab comparison of RF 15-30 with RF 15-35L f2.8, both at f5.6.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

To my thinking there probably isn't as big a difference as the price/size/weight differences might suggest, but this is just a lab test, so real world use is probably different. The f2.8 L isn't exactly a "small" lens though.

Another small-ish option might be the new RF 16-28 f2.8 STM - it actually seems more similar to the L f2.8 than RF 15-30.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1697&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Almost the same size & weight - slightly less zoom range though;

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1624&LensComp=1720

Thanks! Well Andy I am guilty of obsessive pixel peeping, but this site takes it to another level!

Really, I have not been paying attention to the photo world for many years now, and it was seeing some of the new Canon stuff along with a new change in my work that led me in the door. These forums have been very helpful and I plan on posting my final ideas/conclusions. After looking at all the options, it seems that my choice is between Canon and Sony. It is the small Canon R8 that keeps Canon a contender. I became aware of three lenses but did not have the best data on them. It seems from more reading and the digital-picture site that the order of sharpness is RF 16-28 2.8; then (slightly) the RF 14-35 L 4; and then the RF 15-30 variable. There is a 13.8oz to 18oz range between them. The 15-35 is just too big to make the list. All three give me the range for a walk-around lens, but the extra range of the RF 14-35 is sort of nirvana; it is a pity that the 16-28 is narrower, and the extra stop of light is my last concern. I will have to chew on this.

As mentioned, my other option is Sony. There are three small bodies in play, with the A7CR offering a fun adventure towards mid-format. There is a Sony FE 16-35 f4 lens that looks to have similar performance to the Canons above. Both Canon and Sony options put me in the 28-32 oz range. The most costly body is the A7CR, which as a package comes in 30-45% more expensive depending on which Canon lens I pick. I have owned Canon FF and Sony Mirrorless APS-C, so I am somewhat familiar with the feel of each brand; Canon is friendlier for sure. As always, there is no free lunch, and my fantasy of a 18-24oz kit just is not going to happen, unless I resort to a wide prime on some nights, which I am accustomed to doing.

 

[thunder storm]

The R8 with the RF 15-30 is pretty ideal lens range for what I do, but I am certain that to get the best out of it I will have to use it at stopped down at least one stop, and even then, perhaps this glass will let me down?

Here is a lab comparison of RF 15-30 with RF 15-35L f2.8, both at f5.6.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

To my thinking there probably isn't as big a difference as the price/size/weight differences might suggest, but this is just a lab test, so real world use is probably different. The f2.8 L isn't exactly a "small" lens though.

Another small-ish option might be the new RF 16-28 f2.8 STM - it actually seems more similar to the L f2.8 than RF 15-30.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1697&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Almost the same size & weight - slightly less zoom range though;

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1624&LensComp=1720

Thanks! Well Andy I am guilty of obsessive pixel peeping, but this site takes it to another level!

Really, I have not been paying attention to the photo world for many years now, and it was seeing some of the new Canon stuff along with a new change in my work that led me in the door. These forums have been very helpful and I plan on posting my final ideas/conclusions. After looking at all the options, it seems that my choice is between Canon and Sony. It is the small Canon R8 that keeps Canon a contender. I became aware of three lenses but did not have the best data on them. It seems from more reading and the digital-picture site that the order of sharpness is RF 16-28 2.8; then (slightly) the RF 14-35 L 4; and then the RF 15-30 variable. There is a 13.8oz to 18oz range between them. The 15-35 is just too big to make the list. All three give me the range for a walk-around lens, but the extra range of the RF 14-35 is sort of nirvana; it is a pity that the 16-28 is narrower, and the extra stop of light is my last concern. I will have to chew on this.

As mentioned, my other option is Sony. There are three small bodies in play, with the A7CR offering a fun adventure towards mid-format. There is a Sony FE 16-35 f4 lens that looks to have similar performance to the Canons above. Both Canon and Sony options put me in the 28-32 oz range. The most costly body is the A7CR, which as a package comes in 30-45% more expensive depending on which Canon lens I pick. I have owned Canon FF and Sony Mirrorless APS-C, so I am somewhat familiar with the feel of each brand; Canon is friendlier for sure. As always, there is no free lunch, and my fantasy of a 18-24oz kit just is not going to happen, unless I resort to a wide prime on some nights, which I am accustomed to doing.

If you're looking for just one zoom lens, the R8 might be the best option. The body is pretty affordable, so you can steer quite some money towards a good lens. I would pick the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 over the 15-30mm dark aperture option, and the 14-35mm f/4.0 L is a good option as well.

If you're ending up buying a whole bunch of lenses the Sony route might be better value for money, as the bodies are generally more expensive, but the lenses are generally more affordable. I'm not sure why you're mentioning the A7CR only, as next to the R8 option the A7CII is a more comparable option. The Sony bodies have IBIS, and more wide angle prime options. There's a Sony 16mm f/1.8 G at 300g, a Viltrox 16m f/1.8 at 550g, there are small 20mm options.... For Canon there's the truly compact and affordable 16mm f/2.8, but without IBIS there's no stabilization, and the IQ is not on par with what's available for the Sony mount.

 

[SHOT IN ROME]

The R8 with the RF 15-30 is pretty ideal lens range for what I do, but I am certain that to get the best out of it I will have to use it at stopped down at least one stop, and even then, perhaps this glass will let me down?

Here is a lab comparison of RF 15-30 with RF 15-35L f2.8, both at f5.6.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

To my thinking there probably isn't as big a difference as the price/size/weight differences might suggest, but this is just a lab test, so real world use is probably different. The f2.8 L isn't exactly a "small" lens though.

Another small-ish option might be the new RF 16-28 f2.8 STM - it actually seems more similar to the L f2.8 than RF 15-30.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1697&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Almost the same size & weight - slightly less zoom range though;

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1624&LensComp=1720

Thanks! Well Andy I am guilty of obsessive pixel peeping, but this site takes it to another level!

Really, I have not been paying attention to the photo world for many years now, and it was seeing some of the new Canon stuff along with a new change in my work that led me in the door. These forums have been very helpful and I plan on posting my final ideas/conclusions. After looking at all the options, it seems that my choice is between Canon and Sony. It is the small Canon R8 that keeps Canon a contender. I became aware of three lenses but did not have the best data on them. It seems from more reading and the digital-picture site that the order of sharpness is RF 16-28 2.8; then (slightly) the RF 14-35 L 4; and then the RF 15-30 variable. There is a 13.8oz to 18oz range between them. The 15-35 is just too big to make the list. All three give me the range for a walk-around lens, but the extra range of the RF 14-35 is sort of nirvana; it is a pity that the 16-28 is narrower, and the extra stop of light is my last concern. I will have to chew on this.

As mentioned, my other option is Sony. There are three small bodies in play, with the A7CR offering a fun adventure towards mid-format. There is a Sony FE 16-35 f4 lens that looks to have similar performance to the Canons above. Both Canon and Sony options put me in the 28-32 oz range. The most costly body is the A7CR, which as a package comes in 30-45% more expensive depending on which Canon lens I pick. I have owned Canon FF and Sony Mirrorless APS-C, so I am somewhat familiar with the feel of each brand; Canon is friendlier for sure. As always, there is no free lunch, and my fantasy of a 18-24oz kit just is not going to happen, unless I resort to a wide prime on some nights, which I am accustomed to doing.

If you're looking for just one zoom lens, the R8 might be the best option. The body is pretty affordable, so you can steer quite some money towards a good lens. I would pick the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 over the 15-30mm dark aperture option, and the 14-35mm f/4.0 L is a good option as well.

If you're ending up buying a whole bunch of lenses the Sony route might be better value for money, as the bodies are generally more expensive, but the lenses are generally more affordable. I'm not sure why you're mentioning the A7CR only, as next to the R8 option the A7CII is a more comparable option. The Sony bodies have IBIS, and more wide angle prime options. There's a Sony 16mm f/1.8 G at 300g, a Viltrox 16m f/1.8 at 550g, there are small 20mm options.... For Canon there's the truly compact and affordable 16mm f/2.8, but without IBIS there's no stabilization, and the IQ is not on par with what's available for the Sony mount.

Well as I read about the A7CR, it sounds like an interesting adventure. The A7cII is comparable, but then less reason to go Sony. I am only looking for the one zoom now, and possibly a prime wide, which is not expensive for either brand. IBIS is an attraction for sure. Range is more important to me than speed, so the 14-35mm f/4.0 looks best, and performance and cost seem like a draw with the Sony lens. I have used *very good* small and light Nikon zooms, and *very good* is not *great*, so as I learn more, perhaps the RF 15-30 was too good to be true.

 

[thunder storm]

The R8 with the RF 15-30 is pretty ideal lens range for what I do, but I am certain that to get the best out of it I will have to use it at stopped down at least one stop, and even then, perhaps this glass will let me down?

Here is a lab comparison of RF 15-30 with RF 15-35L f2.8, both at f5.6.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

To my thinking there probably isn't as big a difference as the price/size/weight differences might suggest, but this is just a lab test, so real world use is probably different. The f2.8 L isn't exactly a "small" lens though.

Another small-ish option might be the new RF 16-28 f2.8 STM - it actually seems more similar to the L f2.8 than RF 15-30.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1697&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Almost the same size & weight - slightly less zoom range though;

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1624&LensComp=1720

Thanks! Well Andy I am guilty of obsessive pixel peeping, but this site takes it to another level!

Really, I have not been paying attention to the photo world for many years now, and it was seeing some of the new Canon stuff along with a new change in my work that led me in the door. These forums have been very helpful and I plan on posting my final ideas/conclusions. After looking at all the options, it seems that my choice is between Canon and Sony. It is the small Canon R8 that keeps Canon a contender. I became aware of three lenses but did not have the best data on them. It seems from more reading and the digital-picture site that the order of sharpness is RF 16-28 2.8; then (slightly) the RF 14-35 L 4; and then the RF 15-30 variable. There is a 13.8oz to 18oz range between them. The 15-35 is just too big to make the list. All three give me the range for a walk-around lens, but the extra range of the RF 14-35 is sort of nirvana; it is a pity that the 16-28 is narrower, and the extra stop of light is my last concern. I will have to chew on this.

As mentioned, my other option is Sony. There are three small bodies in play, with the A7CR offering a fun adventure towards mid-format. There is a Sony FE 16-35 f4 lens that looks to have similar performance to the Canons above. Both Canon and Sony options put me in the 28-32 oz range. The most costly body is the A7CR, which as a package comes in 30-45% more expensive depending on which Canon lens I pick. I have owned Canon FF and Sony Mirrorless APS-C, so I am somewhat familiar with the feel of each brand; Canon is friendlier for sure. As always, there is no free lunch, and my fantasy of a 18-24oz kit just is not going to happen, unless I resort to a wide prime on some nights, which I am accustomed to doing.

If you're looking for just one zoom lens, the R8 might be the best option. The body is pretty affordable, so you can steer quite some money towards a good lens. I would pick the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 over the 15-30mm dark aperture option, and the 14-35mm f/4.0 L is a good option as well.

If you're ending up buying a whole bunch of lenses the Sony route might be better value for money, as the bodies are generally more expensive, but the lenses are generally more affordable. I'm not sure why you're mentioning the A7CR only, as next to the R8 option the A7CII is a more comparable option. The Sony bodies have IBIS, and more wide angle prime options. There's a Sony 16mm f/1.8 G at 300g, a Viltrox 16m f/1.8 at 550g, there are small 20mm options.... For Canon there's the truly compact and affordable 16mm f/2.8, but without IBIS there's no stabilization, and the IQ is not on par with what's available for the Sony mount.

Well as I read about the A7CR, it sounds like an interesting adventure. The A7cII is comparable, but then less reason to go Sony.

If the 61Mp is that important to you, plan for great glass only. I can't give you any advice on wide angle zooms for the Sony FE-mount. Personally I prefer to pair my A7RV with primes like the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN, Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM, Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art, and the Viltrox 16mm f/1.8. I also like to use it with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8, which is a great zoom, but it's not a prime. That difference is clear once you start to pixel peep at 61Mp. But maybe you shouldn't do that anyway, and maybe it's a better idea to plan for the A7CII if you want to shoot mainly a zoom. The A7CII has still a lot more pixels than the R8 (33Mp vs 24Mp), and on full frame sensors that's more beneficial than the difference between the 24Mp of the R50 and the 32.5Mp of the M6II.

I am only looking for the one zoom now, and possibly a prime wide, which is not expensive for either brand. IBIS is an attraction for sure. Range is more important to me than speed, so the 14-35mm f/4.0 looks best, and performance and cost seem like a draw with the Sony lens. I have used *very good* small and light Nikon zooms, and *very good* is not *great*, so as I learn more, perhaps the RF 15-30 was too good to be true.

I think a zoom as good as the 14-35mm L on the full frame 33Mp A7CII is the sweet spot in your case. The jump from 24Mp R8 to 33Mp A7CII is more beneficial than the jump from the 33Mp A7CII to the A7CR when shooting mainly zooms. I would only spend the extra money on the A7CR if you're o.k. with shooting mainly great primes, not so much for the larger aperture, but simply for the extra sharpness to feed that crazy high pixel density.

 

[drsnoopy]

The M6 is "the past".

The R8 is "the future"...

For me they are both "the present".

The problem with buying used M6ii is you have no idea how long it will be before the on board battery fails. If you already have one, of course keep using it, but I wouldn’t countenance buying a used one at the prices they now go for - madness IMO.

I have both. So they are both "present" for me.

I just make sure my cameras are always stored with charged batteries. Never had any internal battery fail on any camera. I don't know what prices you are talking about. But the M6II is an excellent camera and there is nothing like it in the R system. So I understand if they are very popular.

 

[M4Mobility]

The M6 is "the past".

The R8 is "the future"...

For me they are both "the present".

The problem with buying used M6ii is you have no idea how long it will be before the on board battery fails. If you already have one, of course keep using it, but I wouldn’t countenance buying a used one at the prices they now go for - madness IMO.

I have both. So they are both "present" for me.

I just make sure my cameras are always stored with charged batteries. Never had any internal battery fail on any camera. I don't know what prices you are talking about. But the M6II is an excellent camera and there is nothing like it in the R system. So I understand if they are very popular.

Fingers crossed for your two bodies. There’s no evidence I know of suggesting that keeping a charged main battery in your camera will delay if prevent failure of the built in motherboard battery.

It doesn't hurt and it works for me.

However if if fails you can still use the camera, just have to set time and date every time.

If that happens (very unlikely), I would just charge with USB. It is also very easy to sync date and time with Camera Connect (or EOS utility). So no worries.

In the UK, an M6ii body, in excellent used condition, will be over £600.

It is absolutely worth that price, IMHO.

--
- M4M
“I ain't afraid of no noise.”

 

[SHOT IN ROME]

The R8 with the RF 15-30 is pretty ideal lens range for what I do, but I am certain that to get the best out of it I will have to use it at stopped down at least one stop, and even then, perhaps this glass will let me down?

Here is a lab comparison of RF 15-30 with RF 15-35L f2.8, both at f5.6.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

To my thinking there probably isn't as big a difference as the price/size/weight differences might suggest, but this is just a lab test, so real world use is probably different. The f2.8 L isn't exactly a "small" lens though.

Another small-ish option might be the new RF 16-28 f2.8 STM - it actually seems more similar to the L f2.8 than RF 15-30.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1697&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Almost the same size & weight - slightly less zoom range though;

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1624&LensComp=1720

Thanks! Well Andy I am guilty of obsessive pixel peeping, but this site takes it to another level!

Really, I have not been paying attention to the photo world for many years now, and it was seeing some of the new Canon stuff along with a new change in my work that led me in the door. These forums have been very helpful and I plan on posting my final ideas/conclusions. After looking at all the options, it seems that my choice is between Canon and Sony. It is the small Canon R8 that keeps Canon a contender. I became aware of three lenses but did not have the best data on them. It seems from more reading and the digital-picture site that the order of sharpness is RF 16-28 2.8; then (slightly) the RF 14-35 L 4; and then the RF 15-30 variable. There is a 13.8oz to 18oz range between them. The 15-35 is just too big to make the list. All three give me the range for a walk-around lens, but the extra range of the RF 14-35 is sort of nirvana; it is a pity that the 16-28 is narrower, and the extra stop of light is my last concern. I will have to chew on this.

As mentioned, my other option is Sony. There are three small bodies in play, with the A7CR offering a fun adventure towards mid-format. There is a Sony FE 16-35 f4 lens that looks to have similar performance to the Canons above. Both Canon and Sony options put me in the 28-32 oz range. The most costly body is the A7CR, which as a package comes in 30-45% more expensive depending on which Canon lens I pick. I have owned Canon FF and Sony Mirrorless APS-C, so I am somewhat familiar with the feel of each brand; Canon is friendlier for sure. As always, there is no free lunch, and my fantasy of a 18-24oz kit just is not going to happen, unless I resort to a wide prime on some nights, which I am accustomed to doing.

If you're looking for just one zoom lens, the R8 might be the best option. The body is pretty affordable, so you can steer quite some money towards a good lens. I would pick the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 over the 15-30mm dark aperture option, and the 14-35mm f/4.0 L is a good option as well.

If you're ending up buying a whole bunch of lenses the Sony route might be better value for money, as the bodies are generally more expensive, but the lenses are generally more affordable. I'm not sure why you're mentioning the A7CR only, as next to the R8 option the A7CII is a more comparable option. The Sony bodies have IBIS, and more wide angle prime options. There's a Sony 16mm f/1.8 G at 300g, a Viltrox 16m f/1.8 at 550g, there are small 20mm options.... For Canon there's the truly compact and affordable 16mm f/2.8, but without IBIS there's no stabilization, and the IQ is not on par with what's available for the Sony mount.

Well as I read about the A7CR, it sounds like an interesting adventure. The A7cII is comparable, but then less reason to go Sony.

If the 61Mp is that important to you, plan for great glass only. I can't give you any advice on wide angle zooms for the Sony FE-mount. Personally I prefer to pair my A7RV with primes like the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN, Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM, Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art, and the Viltrox 16mm f/1.8. I also like to use it with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8, which is a great zoom, but it's not a prime. That difference is clear once you start to pixel peep at 61Mp. But maybe you shouldn't do that anyway, and maybe it's a better idea to plan for the A7CII if you want to shoot mainly a zoom. The A7CII has still a lot more pixels than the R8 (33Mp vs 24Mp), and on full frame sensors that's more beneficial than the difference between the 24Mp of the R50 and the 32.5Mp of the M6II.

I am only looking for the one zoom now, and possibly a prime wide, which is not expensive for either brand. IBIS is an attraction for sure. Range is more important to me than speed, so the 14-35mm f/4.0 looks best, and performance and cost seem like a draw with the Sony lens. I have used *very good* small and light Nikon zooms, and *very good* is not *great*, so as I learn more, perhaps the RF 15-30 was too good to be true.

I think a zoom as good as the 14-35mm L on the full frame 33Mp A7CII is the sweet spot in your case. The jump from 24Mp R8 to 33Mp A7CII is more beneficial than the jump from the 33Mp A7CII to the A7CR when shooting mainly zooms. I would only spend the extra money on the A7CR if you're o.k. with shooting mainly great primes, not so much for the larger aperture, but simply for the extra sharpness to feed that crazy high pixel density.

Hah, interesting point. I was under the impression that in the last ten years at least the very best zooms could somewhat match prime performance, and that in those cases what a prime offered was perhaps a stop and certainly small size. I have both the famed Nikkor 14-24 and 16-35 VR and have never felt cheated on the D-800 at 36 MP. I am also hoping that all of my old equipment still have enough value to pay for this expensive jump to a new kit! I will definitely research this some more, thanks.

 

[thunder storm]

The R8 with the RF 15-30 is pretty ideal lens range for what I do, but I am certain that to get the best out of it I will have to use it at stopped down at least one stop, and even then, perhaps this glass will let me down?

Here is a lab comparison of RF 15-30 with RF 15-35L f2.8, both at f5.6.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

To my thinking there probably isn't as big a difference as the price/size/weight differences might suggest, but this is just a lab test, so real world use is probably different. The f2.8 L isn't exactly a "small" lens though.

Another small-ish option might be the new RF 16-28 f2.8 STM - it actually seems more similar to the L f2.8 than RF 15-30.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1697&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Almost the same size & weight - slightly less zoom range though;

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1624&LensComp=1720

Thanks! Well Andy I am guilty of obsessive pixel peeping, but this site takes it to another level!

Really, I have not been paying attention to the photo world for many years now, and it was seeing some of the new Canon stuff along with a new change in my work that led me in the door. These forums have been very helpful and I plan on posting my final ideas/conclusions. After looking at all the options, it seems that my choice is between Canon and Sony. It is the small Canon R8 that keeps Canon a contender. I became aware of three lenses but did not have the best data on them. It seems from more reading and the digital-picture site that the order of sharpness is RF 16-28 2.8; then (slightly) the RF 14-35 L 4; and then the RF 15-30 variable. There is a 13.8oz to 18oz range between them. The 15-35 is just too big to make the list. All three give me the range for a walk-around lens, but the extra range of the RF 14-35 is sort of nirvana; it is a pity that the 16-28 is narrower, and the extra stop of light is my last concern. I will have to chew on this.

As mentioned, my other option is Sony. There are three small bodies in play, with the A7CR offering a fun adventure towards mid-format. There is a Sony FE 16-35 f4 lens that looks to have similar performance to the Canons above. Both Canon and Sony options put me in the 28-32 oz range. The most costly body is the A7CR, which as a package comes in 30-45% more expensive depending on which Canon lens I pick. I have owned Canon FF and Sony Mirrorless APS-C, so I am somewhat familiar with the feel of each brand; Canon is friendlier for sure. As always, there is no free lunch, and my fantasy of a 18-24oz kit just is not going to happen, unless I resort to a wide prime on some nights, which I am accustomed to doing.

If you're looking for just one zoom lens, the R8 might be the best option. The body is pretty affordable, so you can steer quite some money towards a good lens. I would pick the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 over the 15-30mm dark aperture option, and the 14-35mm f/4.0 L is a good option as well.

If you're ending up buying a whole bunch of lenses the Sony route might be better value for money, as the bodies are generally more expensive, but the lenses are generally more affordable. I'm not sure why you're mentioning the A7CR only, as next to the R8 option the A7CII is a more comparable option. The Sony bodies have IBIS, and more wide angle prime options. There's a Sony 16mm f/1.8 G at 300g, a Viltrox 16m f/1.8 at 550g, there are small 20mm options.... For Canon there's the truly compact and affordable 16mm f/2.8, but without IBIS there's no stabilization, and the IQ is not on par with what's available for the Sony mount.

Well as I read about the A7CR, it sounds like an interesting adventure. The A7cII is comparable, but then less reason to go Sony.

If the 61Mp is that important to you, plan for great glass only. I can't give you any advice on wide angle zooms for the Sony FE-mount. Personally I prefer to pair my A7RV with primes like the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN, Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM, Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art, and the Viltrox 16mm f/1.8. I also like to use it with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8, which is a great zoom, but it's not a prime. That difference is clear once you start to pixel peep at 61Mp. But maybe you shouldn't do that anyway, and maybe it's a better idea to plan for the A7CII if you want to shoot mainly a zoom. The A7CII has still a lot more pixels than the R8 (33Mp vs 24Mp), and on full frame sensors that's more beneficial than the difference between the 24Mp of the R50 and the 32.5Mp of the M6II.

I am only looking for the one zoom now, and possibly a prime wide, which is not expensive for either brand. IBIS is an attraction for sure. Range is more important to me than speed, so the 14-35mm f/4.0 looks best, and performance and cost seem like a draw with the Sony lens. I have used *very good* small and light Nikon zooms, and *very good* is not *great*, so as I learn more, perhaps the RF 15-30 was too good to be true.

I think a zoom as good as the 14-35mm L on the full frame 33Mp A7CII is the sweet spot in your case. The jump from 24Mp R8 to 33Mp A7CII is more beneficial than the jump from the 33Mp A7CII to the A7CR when shooting mainly zooms. I would only spend the extra money on the A7CR if you're o.k. with shooting mainly great primes, not so much for the larger aperture, but simply for the extra sharpness to feed that crazy high pixel density.

Hah, interesting point. I was under the impression that in the last ten years at least the very best zooms could somewhat match prime performance,

Well, not only zoom performance is a moving reality, the same is true for increasing pixel density setting new bars and prime performance.

So if you compare a recent zoom to an 8 years old prime on an 8 years old Mp-count, yes, the difference isn't that huge, it can be simply equal. However, primes got better as well, so when comparing a recent zoom vs a recent prime >> the prime wins, and that difference especially shows on that recent Mp count of 61Mp your looking at when considering that A7CR to be so much more exiting than the A7CII. At that 61 Mp count you're setting the bar high enough to get the old difference back again between zooms and primes. And maybe you just shouldn't do that when you want to enjoy the improved performance of recent zooms ;-)

and that in those cases what a prime offered was perhaps a stop and certainly small size. I have both the famed Nikkor 14-24 and 16-35 VR and have never felt cheated on the D-800 at 36 MP.

O.k. I'm shooting a 24-70mm f/2.8 dslr zoom on my 45Mp Canon body, and stopped down around f/5.6 or so it's not that far from the primes can do at their best aperture settings. A lot depends on how much light you need (or how much DOF you don't want to trade anyway)

I am also hoping that all of my old equipment still have enough value to pay for this expensive jump to a new kit! I will definitely research this some more, thanks.

You're welcome. Look, I'm not saying you shouldn't go with zooms and 61Mp. All I'm saying: keep some balance between the money steered towards the pixel density and the performance of the lenses you're planning to shoot. There are lots of reviews of wide angle zooms, also at high Mp sensors, and it's worth it to investigate the performance of these lenses a bit further before spending the extra money on 61MP.

Personally I'm o.k. with 28mm as my widest lens in a lot of situations. I also have a 12mm fisheye which I like a lot. I don't need to be at wide angles so often I need a very good zoom for that, so I'm not so deeply into wide angle zoom performance.

 

[SHOT IN ROME]

If you come from the Nikon camp, why not Z50II plus some of the Z DX lenses?

I was super impressed when I saw some of the things Canon was doing, so that is how I got here. But someone mentioned Sony, and indeed, I see now that for a lot of money it has some enticing offerings. So I should look at Nikon as well. I like Nikon but I am fairly agnostic and have shot Pentax 6x7, Fuji 6x9, Hasselblad, Canon FF, Rollei, Sony APS-C. I have the means to buy anything, but I automatically resist the pricier options unless the need is overwhelming. I did just fine with my Nikon FE2's for over twenty years.

Thanks to everyone who contributed. It has helped to increase my awareness of what options currently exist, and to sharpen my thoughts about what I might need. My conclusions include that resolution does matter to me more than many other factors, and I really do want to stay as small as possible. I looked at all the brand options and it appears that Sony offers the best combinations of small size/high resolution with better quality small lens choices. I think that if I do go with a one-lens solution, it will be a Sony A7CII or a Sony A7CR with the Sony FE PZ 16-35 f/4 G lens; that is 31 oz. For a two-lens solution I am looking for a dedicated wide prime to couple with some small conventional range zoom that go longer, although at 12.5 oz the 16-35 leaves little to be desired, and I just don't shoot long.