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 32 MP 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

 

[nnowak]

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 32 MP 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.

If you were not happy with the R50, or any Sony/Nikon crop cameras, you will not be happy with the M6 II. Yes, it has a few more pixels than the R50, but the dynamic range is no better. You will still have the same light blooming you experienced with the R50.

If you wanted to specifically get a crop camera, one of the Fuji cameras with the 40MP sensor would be the best possible. However, given your use cases, a full frame camera is really your best option. For a small full frame camera, the best options would be the Canon R8, Sony A7C II, or A7CR. All three of those would be a good fit for you, it really just depends on personal preference. The Canon is a more traditional SLR shape with better ergonomics. The Sony options have IBIS and much broader lens options.

 

[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 32 MP 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.

If you were not happy with the R50, or any Sony/Nikon crop cameras, you will not be happy with the M6 II. Yes, it has a few more pixels than the R50, but the dynamic range is no better. You will still have the same light blooming you experienced with the R50.

If you wanted to specifically get a crop camera, one of the Fuji cameras with the 40MP sensor would be the best possible. However, given your use cases, a full frame camera is really your best option. For a small full frame camera, the best options would be the Canon R8, Sony A7C II, or A7CR. All three of those would be a good fit for you, it really just depends on personal preference. The Canon is a more traditional SLR shape with better ergonomics. The Sony options have IBIS and much broader lens options.

Thanks, I will have a look at the Sonys. I am interested in small and light, the crop sensor is not a specific concern. But at some point jumping into another FF the size and weight difference from my Nikon 800 dwindles; I use the smallish Nikkor 20mm, but the other ultrawides are beasts. But as they say, you can't have it all-

 

[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 32 MP 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.

If you were not happy with the R50, or any Sony/Nikon crop cameras, you will not be happy with the M6 II. Yes, it has a few more pixels than the R50, but the dynamic range is no better. You will still have the same light blooming you experienced with the R50.

If you wanted to specifically get a crop camera, one of the Fuji cameras with the 40MP sensor would be the best possible. However, given your use cases, a full frame camera is really your best option. For a small full frame camera, the best options would be the Canon R8, Sony A7C II, or A7CR. All three of those would be a good fit for you, it really just depends on personal preference. The Canon is a more traditional SLR shape with better ergonomics. The Sony options have IBIS and much broader lens options.

Oh, and great point. Perhaps I do need the larger sensor to get rid of the blooms.

 

[M4Mobility]

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 32 MP 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

I have both the M6 II and the R8.





If size doesn't matter, I would go with the R8. It's technically the best of the two cameras. But I just love the size of the M6 II + EF-M 22mm (or one of the other small and excellent EF-M lenses.) And I often grab that on my way out instead of the larger R8. And it is so fun to use.
(None of the existing R Aps-c cameras are of any interest to me.)

It will also depend on what lenses you need (or want).

- M4M
“I ain't afraid of no noise.”

 

[nnowak]

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 32 MP 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.

If you were not happy with the R50, or any Sony/Nikon crop cameras, you will not be happy with the M6 II. Yes, it has a few more pixels than the R50, but the dynamic range is no better. You will still have the same light blooming you experienced with the R50.

If you wanted to specifically get a crop camera, one of the Fuji cameras with the 40MP sensor would be the best possible. However, given your use cases, a full frame camera is really your best option. For a small full frame camera, the best options would be the Canon R8, Sony A7C II, or A7CR. All three of those would be a good fit for you, it really just depends on personal preference. The Canon is a more traditional SLR shape with better ergonomics. The Sony options have IBIS and much broader lens options.

Thanks, I will have a look at the Sonys. I am interested in small and light, the crop sensor is not a specific concern. But at some point jumping into another FF the size and weight difference from my Nikon 800 dwindles; I use the smallish Nikkor 20mm, but the other ultrawides are beasts. But as they say, you can't have it all-

Combined, the R8 and A7 CR weigh less than your D800. It should not be too challenging to come up with a kit that is smaller and lighter than your current DSLR setup. I would suggest going to a website like bhphotovideo.com to take a look at what lenses are available for the Canon RF and Sony E mounts. Both mounts have some options for compact, full frame primes and zooms, it is just a question of whether or not the specific focal lengths match your needs.

Canon is blocking most third party lens manufacturers from producing autofocus lenses in the RF mount. The exceptions are a handful of crop specific lenses. The Canon options are much more limited, but they do have a few unique designs that are also quite lightweight. Sony is the opposite in terms of third party support for autofocus lenses, and the number of options is almost overwhelming.

Since you are already familiar with the handling and controls of Nikon cameras, it would be wise to also take a look at some of the Nikon Z mount options. The downside to Nikon is that their bodies and lenses tend to be bigger and heavier than many of the comparable Canon and Sony options. All of the Nikon bodies have IBIS which may allow your to forego the monopod. Third party support for the Nikon Z mount is also quite limited, though it is better than the Canon RF mount. There is a Viltrox 20mm f/2.8 lens available in Nikon Z mount that is quite small and lightweight.

It really all just comes down to which lenses you need.

 

[SHOT IN ROME]

Thanks, the photo comparison is helpful.

 

[MAC]

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 32 MP 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

I have both

I love the m6II + 11-22 + 32 f1.4 and then use my iphone 16 pro max for 48mpxl 13 mm

R8 + RF 24-105 F4L + DXO PL with deep prime xd for noise redux is my core setup - it focuses in moonlight -3.2 EV at f4

 

[aaaarrrrteee]

I have been down this road...making these same choices...I bought the M6 Mark II a few years ago...before they discontinued the M ecosystem. I am generally happy with it. But I would not buy one today. If you get a bunch of EF-M lenses (like I did) and the camera dies on you in a few years, well ya got a bunch of useless lenses.

I have tried many different cameras for travel. I have owned a Sony RX 100 IV. Good camera. Not much fun to operate. Fiddly controls. Sold it. Owned a Sony RX 10 IV. Better camera. Very good. Also a pain in the butt to operate. Menus/ergonomics/user interface were not for me. Sold it.

Have owned a series of Fujifilm X100 cameras...Loved each one. Good for travel but not being able to change lenses is frustrating. It goes on every vacation along with the M6 Mark II.

R8 is a very good camera. It will shoot better photos than an M6 Mark II. But Canon full frame lenses can be big and heavy. There are some very good consumer grade primes (RF 16, 35, 50) that are small and light. But the zooms are bigger. Not as big as EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras but big.

if you want top of the line night time images... you need a top of the line camera. None of your choices will be inexpensive.

R5 Mark II is only a little bigger than the R8 but is a more capable camera.

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-R5-Mark-II-vs-Canon-EOS-R8

Fujifilm X100 VI is very good in low light but you are limited to one lens...you can add a TCL or WCL but they don't change the focal length a whole lot

The other Fujifilm cameras are all very good... and the lenses are small. That is an option.

if had to buy one camera for travel and night time shots.... if I had to sell every piece of gear I owned.... I might consider the Leica Q3 43. But after a while, I would probably get frustrated by only having that one focal length. It won't get me close enough to capture an osprey.

 

[SHOT IN ROME]

I have been down this road...making these same choices...I bought the M6 Mark II a few years ago...before they discontinued the M ecosystem. I am generally happy with it. But I would not buy one today. If you get a bunch of EF-M lenses (like I did) and the camera dies on you in a few years, well ya got a bunch of useless lenses.

I have tried many different cameras for travel. I have owned a Sony RX 100 IV. Good camera. Not much fun to operate. Fiddly controls. Sold it. Owned a Sony RX 10 IV. Better camera. Very good. Also a pain in the butt to operate. Menus/ergonomics/user interface were not for me. Sold it.

Have owned a series of Fujifilm X100 cameras...Loved each one. Good for travel but not being able to change lenses is frustrating. It goes on every vacation along with the M6 Mark II.

R8 is a very good camera. It will shoot better photos than an M6 Mark II. But Canon full frame lenses can be big and heavy. There are some very good consumer grade primes (RF 16, 35, 50) that are small and light. But the zooms are bigger. Not as big as EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras but big.

if you want top of the line night time images... you need a top of the line camera. None of your choices will be inexpensive.

R5 Mark II is only a little bigger than the R8 but is a more capable camera.

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-R5-Mark-II-vs-Canon-EOS-R8

Fujifilm X100 VI is very good in low light but you are limited to one lens...you can add a TCL or WCL but they don't change the focal length a whole lot

The other Fujifilm cameras are all very good... and the lenses are small. That is an option.

if had to buy one camera for travel and night time shots.... if I had to sell every piece of gear I owned.... I might consider the Leica Q3 43. But after a while, I would probably get frustrated by only having that one focal length. It won't get me close enough to capture an osprey.

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.

 

[Maxmolly7]

I have been down this road...making these same choices...I bought the M6 Mark II a few years ago...before they discontinued the M ecosystem. I am generally happy with it. But I would not buy one today. If you get a bunch of EF-M lenses (like I did) and the camera dies on you in a few years, well ya got a bunch of useless lenses.

I have tried many different cameras for travel. I have owned a Sony RX 100 IV. Good camera. Not much fun to operate. Fiddly controls. Sold it. Owned a Sony RX 10 IV. Better camera. Very good. Also a pain in the butt to operate. Menus/ergonomics/user interface were not for me. Sold it.

Have owned a series of Fujifilm X100 cameras...Loved each one. Good for travel but not being able to change lenses is frustrating. It goes on every vacation along with the M6 Mark II.

R8 is a very good camera. It will shoot better photos than an M6 Mark II. But Canon full frame lenses can be big and heavy. There are some very good consumer grade primes (RF 16, 35, 50) that are small and light. But the zooms are bigger. Not as big as EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras but big.

if you want top of the line night time images... you need a top of the line camera. None of your choices will be inexpensive.

R5 Mark II is only a little bigger than the R8 but is a more capable camera.

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-R5-Mark-II-vs-Canon-EOS-R8

Fujifilm X100 VI is very good in low light but you are limited to one lens...you can add a TCL or WCL but they don't change the focal length a whole lot

The other Fujifilm cameras are all very good... and the lenses are small. That is an option.

if had to buy one camera for travel and night time shots.... if I had to sell every piece of gear I owned.... I might consider the Leica Q3 43. But after a while, I would probably get frustrated by only having that one focal length. It won't get me close enough to capture an osprey.

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.

Good choices!

 

[Maxmolly7]

I have been down this road...making these same choices...I bought the M6 Mark II a few years ago...before they discontinued the M ecosystem. I am generally happy with it. But I would not buy one today. If you get a bunch of EF-M lenses (like I did) and the camera dies on you in a few years, well ya got a bunch of useless lenses.

I have tried many different cameras for travel. I have owned a Sony RX 100 IV. Good camera. Not much fun to operate. Fiddly controls. Sold it. Owned a Sony RX 10 IV. Better camera. Very good. Also a pain in the butt to operate. Menus/ergonomics/user interface were not for me. Sold it.

Have owned a series of Fujifilm X100 cameras...Loved each one. Good for travel but not being able to change lenses is frustrating. It goes on every vacation along with the M6 Mark II.

R8 is a very good camera. It will shoot better photos than an M6 Mark II. But Canon full frame lenses can be big and heavy. There are some very good consumer grade primes (RF 16, 35, 50) that are small and light. But the zooms are bigger. Not as big as EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras but big.

if you want top of the line night time images... you need a top of the line camera. None of your choices will be inexpensive.

R5 Mark II is only a little bigger than the R8 but is a more capable camera.

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-R5-Mark-II-vs-Canon-EOS-R8

Fujifilm X100 VI is very good in low light but you are limited to one lens...you can add a TCL or WCL but they don't change the focal length a whole lot

The other Fujifilm cameras are all very good... and the lenses are small. That is an option.

if had to buy one camera for travel and night time shots.... if I had to sell every piece of gear I owned.... I might consider the Leica Q3 43. But after a while, I would probably get frustrated by only having that one focal length. It won't get me close enough to capture an osprey.

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.

So, what did you buy in the end?

 

[Larry Rexley]

I know I'm late to the party here but as a 'former' avid M6ii user (I still have 3 of them plus all the Canon EF-M lenses) I want to put in my 2 cents on M vs. R systems...

I bought an R7 and started building an RF-S system in September 2023, with the kit 18-150 zoom that's similar to the EF-M version (my RF-S version is sharper) and a 24mm f1.8 IS STM.

The R7 is the logical upgrade from the M6ii in terms of sensor size and resolution, and more pro-like features like dual card slots, IBIS, and a comfortably larger battery. However it is noticeably bigger and bulkier than the M6ii, and doesn't quite have the 'fun factor' of the M6ii body-wise, although it sort of 'does' lens-wise as you can take a lot of the compact RF-S lenses and some of the RF primes along in a camera bag. Images from the R7 live up to expectations, and in general I am quite happy with the RF-S and RF lenses that are available.

In November 2023 I also purchased an R8 body for low-light and astro use. Absolutely love, love, love that camera as it is small and lighter than the R7 and HAS the fun factor that the M6ii has if you use it with some lenses like the pancake RF 28mm f2.8 or at night even the larger but light RF 35mm f1.8, so in terms of feel and portability I consider that camera in some ways to also be my 'upgrade' from the M6ii as well. For a very small and light video camera I sometimes shoot 4k in crop mode with the RF-S 18-150, a very small and light kit!

The R8 has stellar AF, amazing low light performance (with DxO Photolab and deep prime de-noise - I've taken stills and video to ISO 102k), and it is my go-to video camera as the rolling shutter is SO much less than the R7. The images and video that come out of that camera are the best I've seen from any camera I've owned. Even with bright light, low-ISO images, the ability to pull detail out of shadows and get a high dynamic range is fantastic.

I have found that the R7 and R8 complement each other very well. The better resolution and crop factor of the R7 make it my go-to daytime camera when I don't need a lot of light, or for wildlife of birding, and the R8 is my go-to for night/astro and video.

I got the RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 lens for the R8 (refurb) to find it slightly sharper than the RF-S 18-150mm f4-6.3 on the R7 at comparable focal lengths! According to Gordon Lang the RF 24-105 f4.7.1 is slightly sharper than the RF 24-105mm f4 L, even though 'f4' L version owners will argue that point almost to the death, perhaps since they paid so much more!

In Fall 2024 I got the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 lens, to find that it is simply spectacular: extremely low flare and very sharp across the frame over its entire focal length. I did detailed testing and found it to be sharper on the R7 than the RF-S 18-150mm zoom at all comparable focal lengths, which really surprised me.

The 24-240 is one of the most underrated lenses on the R system optically, it's also an incredibly versatile lens. It's large and heavy though --- it does not do well on the small and light R8 body --- however the Vello BG-C18 battery grip turns the R8 into an R7- or R6ii-like camera with a big grip perfect for that lens, with increased battery life similar to the R7 as it holds two batteries.

So now my 'kits' are the following that I grab going out the door, depending on what I shoot:

1) R7 with 18-150, RF-S 10-18, RF 24mm f1.8, RF 100-400 f5.6-8 & 1.5x teleconverter OR Siggy 150-600mm f5-6.3 C for birding

2) R8 with 24-240, Vello grip, RF 35mm f1.8, RF 16mm f2.8

Sadly I don't shoot much with the M system these days, although from time to time I take out my full-spectrum-converted M200 to do infrared photography.

 

[MAC]

I know I'm late to the party here but as a 'former' avid M6ii user (I still have 3 of them plus all the Canon EF-M lenses) I want to put in my 2 cents on M vs. R systems...

I bought an R7 and started building an RF-S system in September 2023, with the kit 18-150 zoom that's similar to the EF-M version (my RF-S version is sharper) and a 24mm f1.8 IS STM.

The R7 is the logical upgrade from the M6ii in terms of sensor size and resolution, and more pro-like features like dual card slots, IBIS, and a comfortably larger battery. However it is noticeably bigger and bulkier than the M6ii, and doesn't quite have the 'fun factor' of the M6ii body-wise, although it sort of 'does' lens-wise as you can take a lot of the compact RF-S lenses and some of the RF primes along in a camera bag. Images from the R7 live up to expectations, and in general I am quite happy with the RF-S and RF lenses that are available.

In November 2023 I also purchased an R8 body for low-light and astro use. Absolutely love, love, love that camera as it is small and lighter than the R7 and HAS the fun factor that the M6ii has if you use it with some lenses like the pancake RF 28mm f2.8 or at night even the larger but light RF 35mm f1.8, so in terms of feel and portability I consider that camera in some ways to also be my 'upgrade' from the M6ii as well. For a very small and light video camera I sometimes shoot 4k in crop mode with the RF-S 18-150, a very small and light kit!

The R8 has stellar AF, amazing low light performance (with DxO Photolab and deep prime de-noise - I've taken stills and video to ISO 102k), and it is my go-to video camera as the rolling shutter is SO much less than the R7. The images and video that come out of that camera are the best I've seen from any camera I've owned. Even with bright light, low-ISO images, the ability to pull detail out of shadows and get a high dynamic range is fantastic.

I have found that the R7 and R8 complement each other very well. The better resolution and crop factor of the R7 make it my go-to daytime camera when I don't need a lot of light, or for wildlife of birding, and the R8 is my go-to for night/astro and video.

I got the RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 lens for the R8 (refurb) to find it slightly sharper than the RF-S 18-150mm f4-6.3 on the R7 at comparable focal lengths! According to Gordon Lang the RF 24-105 f4.7.1 is slightly sharper than the RF 24-105mm f4 L, even though 'f4' L version owners will argue that point almost to the death, perhaps since they paid so much more!

I was agreeing with most everything you said Larry until you invoked Lang's bum copy

Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

In Fall 2024 I got the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 lens, to find that it is simply spectacular: extremely low flare and very sharp across the frame over its entire focal length. I did detailed testing and found it to be sharper on the R7 than the RF-S 18-150mm zoom at all comparable focal lengths, which really surprised me.

The 24-240 is one of the most underrated lenses on the R system optically, it's also an incredibly versatile lens. It's large and heavy though --- it does not do well on the small and light R8 body --- however the Vello BG-C18 battery grip turns the R8 into an R7- or R6ii-like camera with a big grip perfect for that lens, with increased battery life similar to the R7 as it holds two batteries.

So now my 'kits' are the following that I grab going out the door, depending on what I shoot:

1) R7 with 18-150, RF-S 10-18, RF 24mm f1.8, RF 100-400 f5.6-8 & 1.5x teleconverter OR Siggy 150-600mm f5-6.3 C for birding

2) R8 with 24-240, Vello grip, RF 35mm f1.8, RF 16mm f2.8

Sadly I don't shoot much with the M system these days, although from time to time I take out my full-spectrum-converted M200 to do infrared photography.

 

[Larry Rexley]

I know I'm late to the party here but as a 'former' avid M6ii user (I still have 3 of them plus all the Canon EF-M lenses) I want to put in my 2 cents on M vs. R systems...

I bought an R7 and started building an RF-S system in September 2023, with the kit 18-150 zoom that's similar to the EF-M version (my RF-S version is sharper) and a 24mm f1.8 IS STM.

The R7 is the logical upgrade from the M6ii in terms of sensor size and resolution, and more pro-like features like dual card slots, IBIS, and a comfortably larger battery. However it is noticeably bigger and bulkier than the M6ii, and doesn't quite have the 'fun factor' of the M6ii body-wise, although it sort of 'does' lens-wise as you can take a lot of the compact RF-S lenses and some of the RF primes along in a camera bag. Images from the R7 live up to expectations, and in general I am quite happy with the RF-S and RF lenses that are available.

In November 2023 I also purchased an R8 body for low-light and astro use. Absolutely love, love, love that camera as it is small and lighter than the R7 and HAS the fun factor that the M6ii has if you use it with some lenses like the pancake RF 28mm f2.8 or at night even the larger but light RF 35mm f1.8, so in terms of feel and portability I consider that camera in some ways to also be my 'upgrade' from the M6ii as well. For a very small and light video camera I sometimes shoot 4k in crop mode with the RF-S 18-150, a very small and light kit!

The R8 has stellar AF, amazing low light performance (with DxO Photolab and deep prime de-noise - I've taken stills and video to ISO 102k), and it is my go-to video camera as the rolling shutter is SO much less than the R7. The images and video that come out of that camera are the best I've seen from any camera I've owned. Even with bright light, low-ISO images, the ability to pull detail out of shadows and get a high dynamic range is fantastic.

I have found that the R7 and R8 complement each other very well. The better resolution and crop factor of the R7 make it my go-to daytime camera when I don't need a lot of light, or for wildlife of birding, and the R8 is my go-to for night/astro and video.

I got the RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 lens for the R8 (refurb) to find it slightly sharper than the RF-S 18-150mm f4-6.3 on the R7 at comparable focal lengths! According to Gordon Lang the RF 24-105 f4.7.1 is slightly sharper than the RF 24-105mm f4 L, even though 'f4' L version owners will argue that point almost to the death, perhaps since they paid so much more!

I was agreeing with most everything you said Larry until you invoked Lang's bum copy

Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

Fair enough, I don't have both lenses so I can't comment directly for sure. The link you provided shows stronger performance for the L lens at 24mm, but at longer focal lengths in many cases at comparable aperture, the non-L lens appears slightly better. The L lens overall does appear to have more contrast. Both do poorly in the CA department but Canon appears to forego CA as it is correctable

Optical limits seems to find similar results: the L lens has better corner performance at 24mm, but the non-L lens in other cases sometimes appears to resolve slightly more, if their tests are done in a consistent manner with the same body (I don't know if that's the case).

https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-24-105mm-f-4-usm-l-is-review/

https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-24-105mm-f-4-7-1-stm-is-review/

https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-24-240mm-f-4-5-6-is-stm/

At the very least, what can probably be said is all 3 lenses for most photography after post-processing are likely to give relatively similar (very good to excellent) results. The differences only appear when pixel peeping on a high-res body. the 24-240 holds its own, suprisingly. The L lens is better in almost every way but does not appear to be a significant 'cut above' optically the way L lenses commonly seem to be.

In Fall 2024 I got the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 lens, to find that it is simply spectacular: extremely low flare and very sharp across the frame over its entire focal length. I did detailed testing and found it to be sharper on the R7 than the RF-S 18-150mm zoom at all comparable focal lengths, which really surprised me.

The 24-240 is one of the most underrated lenses on the R system optically, it's also an incredibly versatile lens. It's large and heavy though --- it does not do well on the small and light R8 body --- however the Vello BG-C18 battery grip turns the R8 into an R7- or R6ii-like camera with a big grip perfect for that lens, with increased battery life similar to the R7 as it holds two batteries.

So now my 'kits' are the following that I grab going out the door, depending on what I shoot:

1) R7 with 18-150, RF-S 10-18, RF 24mm f1.8, RF 100-400 f5.6-8 & 1.5x teleconverter OR Siggy 150-600mm f5-6.3 C for birding

2) R8 with 24-240, Vello grip, RF 35mm f1.8, RF 16mm f2.8

Sadly I don't shoot much with the M system these days, although from time to time I take out my full-spectrum-converted M200 to do infrared photography.https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-24-105mm-f-4-usm-l-is-review/

 

[MAC]

I know I'm late to the party here but as a 'former' avid M6ii user (I still have 3 of them plus all the Canon EF-M lenses) I want to put in my 2 cents on M vs. R systems...

I bought an R7 and started building an RF-S system in September 2023, with the kit 18-150 zoom that's similar to the EF-M version (my RF-S version is sharper) and a 24mm f1.8 IS STM.

The R7 is the logical upgrade from the M6ii in terms of sensor size and resolution, and more pro-like features like dual card slots, IBIS, and a comfortably larger battery. However it is noticeably bigger and bulkier than the M6ii, and doesn't quite have the 'fun factor' of the M6ii body-wise, although it sort of 'does' lens-wise as you can take a lot of the compact RF-S lenses and some of the RF primes along in a camera bag. Images from the R7 live up to expectations, and in general I am quite happy with the RF-S and RF lenses that are available.

In November 2023 I also purchased an R8 body for low-light and astro use. Absolutely love, love, love that camera as it is small and lighter than the R7 and HAS the fun factor that the M6ii has if you use it with some lenses like the pancake RF 28mm f2.8 or at night even the larger but light RF 35mm f1.8, so in terms of feel and portability I consider that camera in some ways to also be my 'upgrade' from the M6ii as well. For a very small and light video camera I sometimes shoot 4k in crop mode with the RF-S 18-150, a very small and light kit!

The R8 has stellar AF, amazing low light performance (with DxO Photolab and deep prime de-noise - I've taken stills and video to ISO 102k), and it is my go-to video camera as the rolling shutter is SO much less than the R7. The images and video that come out of that camera are the best I've seen from any camera I've owned. Even with bright light, low-ISO images, the ability to pull detail out of shadows and get a high dynamic range is fantastic.

I have found that the R7 and R8 complement each other very well. The better resolution and crop factor of the R7 make it my go-to daytime camera when I don't need a lot of light, or for wildlife of birding, and the R8 is my go-to for night/astro and video.

I got the RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 lens for the R8 (refurb) to find it slightly sharper than the RF-S 18-150mm f4-6.3 on the R7 at comparable focal lengths! According to Gordon Lang the RF 24-105 f4.7.1 is slightly sharper than the RF 24-105mm f4 L, even though 'f4' L version owners will argue that point almost to the death, perhaps since they paid so much more!

I was agreeing with most everything you said Larry until you invoked Lang's bum copy

Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

Fair enough, I don't have both lenses so I can't comment directly for sure. The link you provided shows stronger performance for the L lens at 24mm, but at longer focal lengths in many cases at comparable aperture, the non-L lens appears slightly better. The L lens overall does appear to have more contrast. Both do poorly in the CA department but Canon appears to forego CA as it is correctable

Optical limits seems to find similar results: the L lens has better corner performance at 24mm, but the non-L lens in other cases sometimes appears to resolve slightly more, if their tests are done in a consistent manner with the same body (I don't know if that's the case).

https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-24-105mm-f-4-usm-l-is-review/

https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-24-105mm-f-4-7-1-stm-is-review/

https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-24-240mm-f-4-5-6-is-stm/

At the very least, what can probably be said is all 3 lenses for most photography after post-processing are likely to give relatively similar (very good to excellent) results. The differences only appear when pixel peeping on a high-res body. the 24-240 holds its own, suprisingly. The L lens is better in almost every way but does not appear to be a significant 'cut above' optically the way L lenses commonly seem to be.

it depends on where and what you shoot Larry

I go indoors into museums often

I often need F4 throughout the range and don't want to be at F6.3 or F7.1

In Fall 2024 I got the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 lens, to find that it is simply spectacular: extremely low flare and very sharp across the frame over its entire focal length. I did detailed testing and found it to be sharper on the R7 than the RF-S 18-150mm zoom at all comparable focal lengths, which really surprised me.

The 24-240 is one of the most underrated lenses on the R system optically, it's also an incredibly versatile lens. It's large and heavy though --- it does not do well on the small and light R8 body --- however the Vello BG-C18 battery grip turns the R8 into an R7- or R6ii-like camera with a big grip perfect for that lens, with increased battery life similar to the R7 as it holds two batteries.

So now my 'kits' are the following that I grab going out the door, depending on what I shoot:

1) R7 with 18-150, RF-S 10-18, RF 24mm f1.8, RF 100-400 f5.6-8 & 1.5x teleconverter OR Siggy 150-600mm f5-6.3 C for birding

2) R8 with 24-240, Vello grip, RF 35mm f1.8, RF 16mm f2.8

Sadly I don't shoot much with the M system these days, although from time to time I take out my full-spectrum-converted M200 to do infrared photography.https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-24-105mm-f-4-usm-l-is-review/

 

[Andy01]

Fair enough, I don't have both lenses so I can't comment directly for sure. The link you provided shows stronger performance for the L lens at 24mm, but at longer focal lengths in many cases at comparable aperture, the non-L lens appears slightly better. The L lens overall does appear to have more contrast. Both do poorly in the CA department but Canon appears to forego CA as it is correctable

Optical limits seems to find similar results: the L lens has better corner performance at 24mm, but the non-L lens in other cases sometimes appears to resolve slightly more, if their tests are done in a consistent manner with the same body (I don't know if that's the case).

https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-24-105mm-f-4-usm-l-is-review/

https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-24-105mm-f-4-7-1-stm-is-review/

https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-24-240mm-f-4-5-6-is-stm/

At the very least, what can probably be said is all 3 lenses for most photography after post-processing are likely to give relatively similar (very good to excellent) results. The differences only appear when pixel peeping on a high-res body. the 24-240 holds its own, suprisingly. The L lens is better in almost every way but does not appear to be a significant 'cut above' optically the way L lenses commonly seem to be

I went through this decision making process last year, and picked the RF 24-105L f4. I went to a camera shop and mounted the 3 lenses on both R8 & R10 (the bodies I was buying) and shot a variety of test shots in the shop on my own card, and went home and pixel peeped. I was switching to RF to achieve a smaller and lighter kit for doing some traveling in retirement.

Arguably (in broad terms) there really wasn't much to pick and choose between them, so for those wanting the lens for holiday "snapshots", mostly for social media, any of the 3 would do.

My use case was a bit more than that because this would be my main walk-around lens, and my travel kit was only going to have 3 lenses, RF 24-xxx, RF 100-400 & RF 15-30 with R8 & R10 - to keep things a bit lighter.

So, not having a faster prime was pushing me towards the L lens because at least it had f4, which was substantially faster than the other lenses. Size and weight was obviously greater than the STM lens, but less than that lens plus a fast prime. The L lens certainly wasn't any worse for IQ than the others (and arguably, generally better), and it is a higher quality lens and likely to last longer. I didn't need the extra reach of 24-240 because I leave 100-400 mounted on R10 in the bag.

Each person has their own use case and I don't think we could go too far wrong with any of the 3 lenses mentioned - it is just about choosing the one that ticks the most personal boxes.

 

[JRET]

My use case was a bit more than that because this would be my main walk-around lens, and my travel kit was only going to have 3 lenses, RF 24-xxx, RF 100-400 & RF 15-30 with R8 & R10 - to keep things a bit lighter.

Did you consider the RF 70-200 f/4? Yes, a bit more expensive than the 100-400 but having the constant f/4 would be nice.

 

[Digirame]

Larry, I really appreciate the time that you spent writing this. My only two R series cameras are the Canon RP and R8. I agree with you about your Canon R8 comments...I love, love, love the Canon R8 too. With it I'm having fun focus bracketing and stacking (in camera) images, especially flowers. I also like the improved silent shutter over the Canon RP and Canon M50 Mark II cameras that I'm also using.

At the moment, I'm still also using my older crop sensor Canon DSLR cameras. But if I were to get another R series crop sensor camera, the Canon R7 seems to be a good choice.

Why does the Canon RF 24-240mm lens do not do well on the Canon R8? I assume you meant in terms of its size. I'm using the Canon RF 100-400mm lens with the Canon R8 and I find that it's fine...works well. I saw the Canon RF 24-240mm lens in a store once. It seems about the same size and from what I understand it's very close to the same weight...only 1/4th of a pound more. I read your comments again and for you it has to do something with the grip. I suppose someone could buy that lens and then maybe add a grip later. I was considering the Canon RF 24-240mm lens also, maybe some day in the future. Again thanks for your time.

 

[Andy01]

My use case was a bit more than that because this would be my main walk-around lens, and my travel kit was only going to have 3 lenses, RF 24-xxx, RF 100-400 & RF 15-30 with R8 & R10 - to keep things a bit lighter.

Did you consider the RF 70-200 f/4? Yes, a bit more expensive than the 100-400 but having the constant f/4 would be nice.

I didn't - because I wanted the reach (on R10) as my wildlife/birds/far-away-things combo, so 200mm is much too short for that (even on a crop body).

I have kept my EF 100-400L ii for the few occasions (like safaris near dawn or dusk) when a faster lens is required, but it will be a shock moving from a 635g RF 100-400 to a 1800g (with adapter) EF 100-400L ii. I haven't yet used the EF lens since I got the RF lens.