Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L

  
 
bman212121
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


rancherpix wrote:
I've done the "buy and then sell" drill a number of times and it's always worked out cheaper than renting, especially for long trips. But, of course, you have to deal with the "sell" part at some point.


The other huge piece to that puzzle is liability. I'm sure everyone takes great care of gear, but accidents do happen. With the rental you might only be liable for a certain percentage of the replacement cost should the gear fall off a cliff. You'd really need to check with your insurance to see what kind of coverage you would have if you bought the gear, and what they would cover. I'm guessing with an M5 it's just below the threshold of worrying about that aspect but option #3 is definitely well within the range of making sure you have insurance.



Jul 05, 2022 at 11:25 PM
max105
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


Jeff Nolten wrote:
Assuming this is an Alaska Cruise similar to one we did three years ago, there are no cheap upgrades from your M5 kit. For our trip, I took 5D4, 24-105 L, and 100-400 L II. From shipboard, the wildlife was a bit too distant for my taste, but the 100-400 + 1.4xIII was just adequate (560 mm). I used the 24-105 more frequently for glacier shots, landscapes, museums, and people pictures. Don't neglect this focal range.


I ended up buying a M6 II (w/ EVF) and a used 100-400L II. I should have 640mm of reach with this combo. Do you feel this would be enough for this cruise trip?

For the 24-105 range, I plan to have the 11-22mm or 18-150mm on the M5 for it.

For our upcoming Kodiak Alaska trip, I am taking the same kit as it has served me well for many years. We just upgraded my wife's 77D kit to an R7 kit and I can borrow that for use with my 100-400 if necessary. However, I am starting out with a FF kit that I'm happy with. If I were starting with just an M5, I would have to go with the R5 or R6, RF 24-105 f4 L, and RF 100-500, equivalent to my current kit. I would suggest my wife use the M5 kit for its compactness (her preference)....Show more

I wish my wife was into photography. It'd be easier to justify the costs and share gear.

The M6II is a fun little high performance camera and I enjoy using it when I can afford the weight of a spare kit. It was great fun on a recent beach camping trip. I find I don't like using it with lenses larger than the EF 70-300 II. This lens is very sharp and gets you to 480mm equivalent reach. You could get an adapter and this lens and use it with your M5 if you think the reach would be adequate. The only native lenses I use with my M are the 11-22, 28 macro, and a collection of...Show more

I did consider the EF 70-300 II, and still might add it to my M-series kit. For this trip, I just wanted something with a little more reach and decided to go with the 100-400.

Ideally, I would've bought the R7 as I feel it fits my budget and trip requirements best. Just bad timing with the release and inventory issues.

Another option if you are happy with your M kit for what it covers is to buy used or rent a 77D or 80D and 100-400 (640 mm). In addition to the Canon 100-400, I have the Sigma 100-400 Contemporary. It weighs a pound less than the Canon, is cheaper and is almost identically sharp without 1.4x. Keep or sell depending. The 77D and 80D are wonderful cameras with the same sensor as your M5. The 77D is a bit lighter and with less customization. It uses the same battery as your M, but the 77D is not mirrorless so battery...Show more

I actually owned the 80D + 100-400L a few years ago when I went on safari and loved that kit. I'm sure a full-frame or 7D are better cameras, but it was wonderful for me. I only had Rebel DSLRs up to that point so my bar was low. However, it was just too big/heavy to carry around outside of a specialized trip. If anything, that white lens screams "pro" to people and I've been forbidden to use it in some places. That's when I downsized to the M5 and rarely regret that decision.

People keep saying these are once in a lifetime trips, but I don't really believe in that saying. I try to travel often and expect to revisit some of these places in the future.

Canon RF kit, == a small car.

The R6 alone is worth more than my car and probably why it's such a hurdle for me to spend so much.



Jul 06, 2022 at 12:13 AM
max105
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


jedibrain wrote:
Crop mode on the R5 gives the same central 18mp as just cropping the same FOV as the full frame mode (there is no pixel binning or anything fancy, just a crop). If you know you are going to throw those pixels away anyway it does make sense to use that mode. But there are still many less pixels per duck than an M6II or R7. Still, they are very high quality pixels on the R5, and the noise performance is probably better than the APSc sensors.

OP, what is your budget for gear?

Brian



Budget might be around 2k-ish to buy and own. I don't like spending more than I need to. I typically owned bodies or lenses in the $1k range. My safari trip a few years back definitely made me see the value of higher end gear when I got the 100-400L, which was just <$2k at the time, but I sold it after getting back from the trip. The R5 or the RF 100-500 alone are worth more than any body/lens kit I've ever owned. I probably just need to get over this mental hump. I just fear that I'll be so worried about protecting the gear rather than actually using/enjoying it on the trip.



Jul 06, 2022 at 12:25 AM
jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


max105 wrote:
Budget might be around 2k-ish to buy and own. I don't like spending more than I need to. I typically owned bodies or lenses in the $1k range. My safari trip a few years back definitely made me see the value of higher end gear when I got the 100-400L, which was just <$2k at the time, but I sold it after getting back from the trip. The R5 or the RF 100-500 alone are worth more than any body/lens kit I've ever owned. I probably just need to get over this mental hump. I just fear that I'll be
...Show more

It sounds from above like you landed on an M6II and I think you'll be good with that. Get lots of extra batteries though!

If you have some budget left, see if you can grab a Canon 1.4x TC vIII. Just in case you need to punch in a little more. If not, you have about the highest pixel density you can get with that M6II. So go and take a ton of shots and have a bunch of fun!

-Brian





Jul 06, 2022 at 08:36 AM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


max105 wrote:
I ended up buying a M6 II (w/ EVF) and a used 100-400L II. I should have 640mm of reach with this combo. Do you feel this would be enough for this cruise trip?

For the 24-105 range, I plan to have the 11-22mm or 18-150mm on the M5 for it.

I did consider the EF 70-300 II, and still might add it to my M-series kit. For this trip, I just wanted something with a little more reach and decided to go with the 100-400.


I think you have made a good choice. You won't be sacrificing much in the way of IQ with the M6II over the 90D or R7. They have the same sensor, I've compared mine and can see only very minor differences. The animal AF of the R7 is nice but I've managed to get good wildlife images for years with the old style of AF. You may find the M6II does quite well at animal tracking, it does for people's faces.

I find the 100-400 a bit heavy but it is still manageable and will work very well. It is an extremely good lens. The 70-300 is also good and you can think about that later but for this trip the 100-400 is the better choice. If you like macro you can also consider an EF-M 28 macro or EF-S 35 macro. I prefer the 35 since I'll have the adapter with me anyway. Not necessary for this trip though.

I have the R7 version of the 18-150 and find it a very capable lens. I think the R version is just a remount of the M version. It focuses close and can take advantage of the M6II's focus bracketing ability. I also think having two bodies, one for general use, i.e. with the 18-150 and one for specialized use, wide, macro, telephoto, works very well. I always have my G1X3 with me no matter what my other kit is.

I think you'll be able to capture whatever you see with your kit. Have a great trip and capture lots of memories!



Jul 06, 2022 at 10:36 AM
rmhh
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


Congratulations to your choice. I am also happily using the M6ii + EVF with the EF 100-400L ii. In case you need still more reach, it will even work quite well with the Canon 2x iii extender.


Jul 07, 2022 at 08:29 AM
max105
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


jedibrain wrote:
It sounds from above like you landed on an M6II and I think you'll be good with that. Get lots of extra batteries though!


Fortunately the M5/6 share the same battery so I have 5 batteries now between the two.


If you have some budget left, see if you can grab a Canon 1.4x TC vIII. Just in case you need to punch in a little more. If not, you have about the highest pixel density you can get with that M6II. So go and take a ton of shots and have a bunch of fun!


I don't know if you've used this combo with the 1.4 III, but how's the quality of using the TC vs cropping? I think I read some posts saying it's a toss up between the two, in which case I'd rather keep some of the wider end and have a potentially faster aperture. But if it offers an improvement over cropping, I think I'm willing to to go for it.

Your comment got me looking into getting a TC in case I want to capture a shot of a little puffin nesting in the distance.



Jul 08, 2022 at 01:41 PM
jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


max105 wrote:
Fortunately the M5/6 share the same battery so I have 5 batteries now between the two.

I don't know if you've used this combo with the 1.4 III, but how's the quality of using the TC vs cropping? I think I read some posts saying it's a toss up between the two, in which case I'd rather keep some of the wider end and have a potentially faster aperture. But if it offers an improvement over cropping, I think I'm willing to to go for it.

Your comment got me looking into getting a TC in case I want to capture a
...Show more

I have use the 1.4x III with the 100-400II on an R6, but no tan M6II. You've got a lot of room to crop on a 34mp APSc. I'd say on my R6, I'm comfortable cropping as far as I can to still get a resonable output resolution for viewing the image. Beyond that, the TC is better. Not super helpful I know. But I guess what I'd say is the TC does not live on the lens for me. I put it on when I'm far away from the the subject or the subject is small on the frame and I want to make it bigger. Look at it more like a tool an less like a permanent accessory for the lens. If you don't get one you'll be OK. But on my recent cruise to Alaska there were a number of times the TC was valuable. Even my 800mm f/11 felt short a few times.

-Brian



Jul 08, 2022 at 02:23 PM
AmbientMike
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L




max105 wrote:
I've got a 3-week Arctic cruise trip coming up and trying to figure out my travel kit for the landscapes, bears, walruses, foxes, birds, etc.

My current gear is just a M5 with 18-150mm & 11-22mm lenses, and doesn't really handle wildlife well (slow AF, short reach). I'll need to add a different wildlife body and telephoto lens.

Ideally, I would've bought the R7 and RF 100-400 and be done, but I can't find the R7 or R10 in stock.

I plan to keep a EF-M travel kit and thought of upgrading my M5 to M6 II. I can buy a M6 II
...Show more

I'd hate to spend $900 and have nothing. They've gone up but my 55-250 STM only ~$70 off B&S and I've been using it over 2 years. So I'm hesitant to recommend renting. Although 100-500 might be best for trip on one of the faster R bodies.

Just to be clear did you mean M6 II or M6? M6 is 24mp M6 II is 32mp. Given the higher mp 400mm (640mm ff equivalent) on aps might be better and definitely leaves higher mp if cropping. I'm not a big believer in the M dying, it's been predicted for years, I have no idea if it is going to be tomorrow or years, and the 32mp should be fine for years.



Jul 08, 2022 at 02:24 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


Will a 1.4xIII be needed? Only your circumstances can predict unfortunately. Your M6II is already a 1.6x crop on the 100-400 lens. And, the M6II's 32 MP already gives you 15% more resolution than your M50. Adding 1.4x adds that much more strain on the lens' image stabilization, especially you'll be ship board. And one other consideration, when you change lenses on an M camera the sensor is fully exposed. I'd be very careful if there is any dust or sea mist. This is another reason I like having two bodies so I don't have to change lenses out in the elements.

OTOH, can the camera/lens handle the extra resolution? Yes it probably can. I mostly use my 1.4x with the 100-400 on my 5D4. I find I rarely need it with my 90D, but I have tried it and it works well under ideal conditions.

My suggestion is to use your M6II and 100-400 before you leave and see how it works for you on various targets.



Jul 08, 2022 at 02:31 PM
jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


jedibrain wrote:
I have use the 1.4x III with the 100-400II on an R6, but no tan M6II. You've got a lot of room to crop on a 34mp APSc. I'd say on my R6, I'm comfortable cropping as far as I can to still get a resonable output resolution for viewing the image. Beyond that, the TC is better. Not super helpful I know. But I guess what I'd say is the TC does not live on the lens for me. I put it on when I'm far away from the the subject or the subject is small on the frame
...Show more

For clarification - I don't have an M6II, which is why I don't use that combo.

Brian



Jul 08, 2022 at 02:50 PM
mpwolken
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


So, I've got the 100-400 IS L, not the II, but I find it to work great with my M6 II (I also have an R6). I have the 2x Extender II, and even with IS, 800mm on a 1.6 crop sensor is a challenge. My "ultimate" reach setup is a Nikon 1 J5 with an EF adapter with that lens and that teleconverter, it has a 2.7x crop. I would highly land on the side of using an R5 or R6 with the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC. The AF and low light capability of the R6 really outdoes my M6M2 (though I love that camera too).


Jul 08, 2022 at 09:01 PM
jpeter
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


I didn't feel that the 1.4x was worth it on my 100400v2 and 5dsr.
You have higher pixel density on your rig. Jp



Jul 09, 2022 at 01:36 PM
Sy Sez
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


max105 wrote:
I ended up buying a M6 II (w/ EVF) and a used 100-400L II. I should have 640mm of reach with this combo. Do you feel this would be enough for this cruise trip?


I found that the EF 1.4 lll TC worked very well with my former EF100-400L-2, possibly well worth it if affordable?
$339 for Canon Refurb;

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/extender-14x-lll-refurbished?searchTerm=EXTENDER%20EF%201.4





Jul 09, 2022 at 02:01 PM
jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


Sy Sez wrote:
I found that the EF 1.4 lll TC worked very well with my former EF100-400L-2, possibly well worth it if affordable?
$339 for Canon Refurb;

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/extender-14x-lll-refurbished?searchTerm=EXTENDER%20EF%201.4



They go for $300 or so on the B&S here as well. That's how I got mine.

-Brian



Jul 09, 2022 at 04:35 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L



jedibrain wrote:
It sounds from above like you landed on an M6II and I think you'll be good with that. Get lots of extra batteries though!


Actually, buy a few batteries and also a powerbank with PD to allow in-camera battery charging when you're not using the camera (maybe check the manual to see if it says how many Watts are needed to do in-camera charging via PD). The camera's charger is very small, so not a hassle to bring, but the powerbank gives you another option to charge a second battery or if you misplace the charger. Of course you can also find a use for it charging your phones and other devices.



Jul 09, 2022 at 08:27 PM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Wildlife Trip: M6 II + EF 100-400L II vs R5/R6 + RF 100-500L


If you have an iPad with usb-c connector, what ever you use to charge that will work on the M6II in-body as well. Sounds like the OP is set for batteries however.


Jul 10, 2022 at 12:23 AM
1      
2
       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username      Reset password