Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 4 end

Narrowing down the R body list

JimClark
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Narrowing down the R body list

I have a 7D mark II

Oct 27, 2023 at 11:58 AM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Narrowing down the R body list

IMO, the R6 II is better than the R7 in overall performance. The most annoying thing I found about the R7 was Canon deciding to put the stupid Multi-controller on this body.

Oct 27, 2023 at 12:03 PM

JimClark
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Narrowing down the R body list

There are many advantages that made me think about switching but a big one for me is the improved focusing and weight. This 72 year old is getting tired of hand holding a 7D MKII and the EF100-400 II. 6LB 3OZ

Oct 27, 2023 at 12:10 PM

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Narrowing down the R body list

Something I will never miss is Micro Focus Adjustment. MFA. Some think Canon should have left it and there are other threads for that. I hated it. ML AF is off the sensor at any focal length. Even after MFA the nature of a mirror system still had very slight drift to back and front focus. That was one big factor to me. Next was the better AF.

Oct 27, 2023 at 12:30 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Narrowing down the R body list

JimClark wrote:
There are many advantages that made me think about switching but a big one for me is the improved focusing and weight. This 72 year old is getting tired of hand holding a 7D MKII and the EF100-400 II. 6LB 3OZ

Mirrorless does not automatically mean lighter gear. A 100-400 4.5-5.6 will be the same size as any other lens of the same specs. Mirrorless bodies can be smaller, but the better ones approach the size of the DSLRs they replaced. Mirrorless has enabled some smaller lenses, but that's because they can be slower than f/5.6. For example, lenses like the 24-105 STM or 800/11 are only possible on mirrorless. Canon also makes an RF100-400 f/5.6-8 that is very light, but optically not a match for what you have. It may be good enough though.

Oct 27, 2023 at 01:21 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Narrowing down the R body list

24MP FF pixel density is lower than the 7DII's 20MP APS-C sensor, so the image quality difference between the EF 100-400 and the RF 100-400 might not be as apparent.

JimClark wrote:
There are many advantages that made me think about switching but a big one for me is the improved focusing and weight. This 72 year old is getting tired of hand holding a 7D MKII and the EF100-400 II. 6LB 3OZ

Do you need a vertical battery grip on the camera? If not, then you might consider the R8 instead of the R6II. As mentioned, the R8 has the sensor and apparently also the CPU of the R6II, so AF performance is apparently the same. R8's user interface has been scaled back a bit with fewer input buttons/dial options, no AF point joystick, no battery grip, etc. But as mentioned, if you want to use it in e-shutter mode, it is as good as the R6II, which is the fastest sensor readout speed of Canon's cameras other than the top-end R3.

I had a quick look at various camera specs - the 7DII was about 2 lb, the R6II is about 1.5 lb and the R8 is about 1 lb. If you're just doing it for fun and not really pixel peeping, the RF 100-400 might be a reasonable solution on 24MP full frame, which will be less optically demanding than the R7's 32MP APS-C crop (which has a pixel density equivalent to about 80MP in full frame). The loss of a stop at the long end compared to the EF 100-400 keeps size and weight down. The need to use higher ISOs can be made up by the 24MP FF sensor's better high ISO performance than the 7DII. If shooting RAW, you can run the files through any number of modern noise reduction software options, such as Adobe's new Denoise. My experience with it on ISO 6400 and higher R6II files is that it will knock down noise to the equivalent of native low ISO images, and it also does some detail sharpening. It's impressive what you can squeeze out of sensors now with the help of modern noise reduction software.

I've only had brief experience with the RF 100-500, but was impressed by its optical quality at 500mm. It appears to be as sharp as my 200-400/4.

If weight is a major consideration, you might consider smaller sensor formats, such as Fuji's APS-C system, or the OM/Olympus micro 4/3 system. But not sure how those compare in respect to AF performance, lens options, etc.

Oct 27, 2023 at 02:20 PM

Rivermist
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Narrowing down the R body list

Mike_5D wrote:
Mirrorless does not automatically mean lighter gear. A 100-400 4.5-5.6 will be the same size as any other lens of the same specs. Mirrorless bodies can be smaller, but the better ones approach the size of the DSLRs they replaced. Mirrorless has enabled some smaller lenses, but that's because they can be slower than f/5.6. For example, lenses like the 24-105 STM or 800/11 are only possible on mirrorless. Canon also makes an RF100-400 f/5.6-8 that is very light, but optically not a match for what you have. It may be good enough though.

I will respectfully disagree, some of the RF lens designs have come out lighter and smaller (think 70-200 L f:4, 14-35 L f:4, 10-20 L f:4) either due to the use of in-camera corrections to replace large optical glass elements or completely new designs (compare the RF 35mm f:1.8 to the EF 35mm f:2.0, the RF has a much smaller front element and despite being brighter is actually lighter and smaller).

Oct 27, 2023 at 04:36 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Narrowing down the R body list

Rivermist wrote:
I will respectfully disagree, some of the RF lens designs have come out lighter and smaller (think 70-200 L f:4, 14-35 L f:4, 10-20 L f:4) either due to the use of in-camera corrections to replace large optical glass elements or completely new designs (compare the RF 35mm f:1.8 to the EF 35mm f:2.0, the RF has a much smaller front element and despite being brighter is actually lighter and smaller).

Yes, some wide angle lenses in particular are smaller in RF. Now look at RF vs EF 50L and 85L. The RF 24-70 2.8 is actually bigger and heavier than the EF version, but does add IS. The EF 15-35 2.8, which doesn't rely on software correction, is 50g heavier than the EF predecessor. The 70-200's are smaller because they went with an extending barrel this time. My point is that people have it in their head that going mirrorless means going smaller and lighter. Yes, you CAN in some cases, but not in other cases. It's not the automatic gain many expect.

Oct 27, 2023 at 05:29 PM

Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Narrowing down the R body list

If you're on a tight budget, look at the R7, R6 or R8. All are on sale right now if you look around and have fast AF and able tracking. If you're a hybrid shooter, The R7 has the best 4K video due to better thermal management, extreme oversampling and onboard NR. I didn't care about IBIS until I started using it, and it makes hand held video almost as smooth as a gimbal. On the R7 IBIS can be set to level automatically—one of my fav features and it's strange Canon omitted that ability from the wee bit newer R6 MK II.

Oct 27, 2023 at 06:43 PM

melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Narrowing down the R body list

Like you, I was using a crop camera with the EF 100–400 II, in my case a 1.3× crop rather than 1.6×. I bought a full frame R3. I initially used the EF 1.4× III teleconverter, but managed to get an RF 100–500 for a very good price.

The new lens gets me back close to the 520mm effective focal length I had with my 1D Mk III DSLR, is lighter (especially if you remove the tripod collar), and is much better ergonomically. On balance, it is a better lens, but the bokeh is worse, and I am not yet convinced the colours are as good (unlike the old lens, it has no fluorite element). Of course, I have a decade of shots from the old lens, so it might be an unfair comparison. Nonetheless, if I were short of money I would be regretting this purchase. I really should have got the original R6 and stuck to my EF lenses – my original plan, actually.

That said, the silent shooting of the R3 is wonderful for wildlife. It is currently the only Canon camera which doesn’t compromise image quality for silent shooting. It also weighs 1kg and costs a lot.

Oct 27, 2023 at 06:51 PM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Narrowing down the R body list

I have both the R5 and R7 and a collection of RF lenses that I've used since the beginning of the year. Previously I used a 5D4 and 80/90D and a collection of EF lenses used for close to two decades. I was reluctant to make this transition because I knew it would cost me big bucks and wasn't sure it would be worth it. Bottom line is that it has been for me.

I started by trading my M6II for the R7 because of its numerous feature upgrades from the M and the fact that, for me, I ended up using adapted EF and EF-S lenses. I bought the R7 with the 18-150 kit lens and soon bought the RF 100-400. The R7 ended up replacing three cameras in my kit, the M, my wife's 77D and my 80D. Trading in all the bodies and lenses I no longer used allowed me to buy an Rf 100-500. The R7 is a really fun light weight camera. The R7 + 18-150 + 100-400 weighs 3.4 lbs. Both lenses focus close and the camera has focus stacking and a panorama generator. Its AF is a definite upgrade for object tracking and allows focus and recompose once its locked on to an object. For wildlife it is a definite advantage.

I also use the R7 with adapted EF-S 10-18, 24, 35 macro, and 60 macro. All excellent accessory lenses. Canon may come out with an RF-S 10-18 or 11-22 but for now the EF-S 10-18 has you covered.

Based on my luck with the R7 I decided to transition my 5D4 to a FF R. I first tried the R6II but found it's 24 MP limiting compared to my 5D4 so traded it for an R5. The R5's 45 MP allows me to crop 1.6 and still fill my 5K Retina display. 24 MP may be just fine for you and the R6II is an excellent camera. My FF compatible RF lens collection is 14-35, 24-105, and 100-500 Ls, and 16 f2.8, 85 f2, and 100-400 f8. Using the Ls doesn't save me much weight but using the 16 and 100-400 sure does. All are excellent for what they do IMHO and the R5's AF is just as good as the R7's albeit with different configuration adjustments. Note, configuring these cameras is a lot more complex than any of the DSLRs.

Both of these cameras and the RF lenses work great IMHO. My use of electronic shutter hasn't been an issue but I'm probably not as picky or frequent as some. Likewise the R7's shutter sound is there but not an issue for me. The R5 has the best sounding shutter of any camera I've owned.

I'll also note that for 90% of my photography, the R5 with RF 24-105 produces equal image quality compared to my 5D4 + EF 24-105 (original). However, I can do more types of shooting which extends my capabilities and the 45 MP allows me more cropping for reach. This is especially noticeable with the 100-500 that betters my previous crop cameras with the 100-400 II. Also, the R5's 45 MP lets me get decent sized images using my EF-S lenses, useful at times.

Hope this helps. Transition at your own pace. You'll have to adjust to new cameras but you have many good choices.

Oct 27, 2023 at 07:57 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Narrowing down the R body list

melcat wrote:
That said, the silent shooting of the R3 is wonderful for wildlife. It is currently the only Canon camera which doesn’t compromise image quality for silent shooting. It also weighs 1kg and costs a lot.

Sorry, I don’t get that. How does silent shooting on other models degrade image quality?

Which models other than the R6 II have RAW Capture, a very useful feature?

Oct 27, 2023 at 10:07 PM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Narrowing down the R body list

JimClark wrote:
There are many advantages that made me think about switching but a big one for me is the improved focusing and weight. This 72 year old is getting tired of hand holding a 7D MKII and the EF100-400 II. 6LB 3OZ

Given that, I would say the RF 100-400 could be back on the table for consideration. The IQ is very good, maybe not L quality, but very small and light. That with an R8 would be a lighter package. Or even on an R6 series would save a lot of weight. The Rf100-500 is in the same weight class as your 100-400II.

If you aren't venturing out at the wee hours when the extra stop of light makes a big difference, or in inclement weather where the weather sealing on the L series is helpful, the RF 100-400 could fit your need to reduce weight.

Also look at the 800 f/11 or 600 f/11. Very good in daylight shooting. And very light for their size.

If you do go mirrorless, remember to get extra batteries. They use more juice than a dslr. I like to have 4 for my R6. An r8 has a smaller battery, so you may need more.

Brian

Oct 27, 2023 at 10:28 PM

bman212121
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Narrowing down the R body list

Zenon Char wrote:
First post shows is a screen shot of unofficial readout speeds from one of Duade Paton's videos.

That has to be one of the worst graphs I have ever seen...

For someone who doesn't already know what the graph is trying to tell you the most important thing to know is the smaller the number, the better the sensor is.

A good chart would put that label at the top telling you that, or sort best to worst from top to bottom, or use colors that indicate "good". This chart failed at all 3 clues to help a reader understand the data. Even using colors a legend would go a long way in at least signifying why the colors were chosen.

Oct 27, 2023 at 11:29 PM

melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Narrowing down the R body list

Imagemaster wrote:
Sorry, I don’t get that. How does silent shooting on other models degrade image quality?

By “silent”, I mean here fully electronic shutter.

1. Rolling shutter, as explained upthread by other posters.
2. They reduce the bit depth from 14 to 12 bits. The Sony A9 Mk II, which I cross-shopped against, also does that at 30fps (IIRC you get the full dynamic range at 20fps). I forget what the Sony A1 does, but it can’t do eye detection in video mode, so I wrote it off early.

Of course the R3 does not meet the OP’s weight and cost requirements, but the point I was obliquely making was that a compromise was going to be necessary anyway so a more basic model might be appropriate.

Which models other than the R6 II have RAW Capture, a very useful feature?

I have no idea, and I think only OM System had that when I was making my decision. I assume you mean the ability to buffer raws from before the shutter was pressed.

Oct 27, 2023 at 11:34 PM

Rivermist
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Narrowing down the R body list

jedibrain wrote:
Given that, I would say the RF 100-400 could be back on the table for consideration. The IQ is very good, maybe not L quality, but very small and light. That with an R8 would be a lighter package. Or even on an R6 series would save a lot of weight. The Rf100-500 is in the same weight class as your 100-400II.

If you aren't venturing out at the wee hours when the extra stop of light makes a big difference, or in inclement weather where the weather sealing on the L series is helpful, the RF 100-400 could fit...Show more →

Comment on the batteries: it is correct that mirrorless drains batteries more, after all the full sensor and one display (EVF or rear screen) are always active. However, the R6mk2 and the R8 are a newer generation of R bodies that show better battery performance relative to their predecessors (R6 and RP). I have 2 spare batteries for the R6mk 2 and seldom get to use the second one, likewise 2 spare batteries for the R8 and seldom use the second spare. Your mileage may vary, but Canon does seem to be making progress in reducing battery drain.

Oct 28, 2023 at 06:49 AM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Narrowing down the R body list

Rivermist wrote:
Comment on the batteries: it is correct that mirrorless drains batteries more, after all the full sensor and one display (EVF or rear screen) are always active. However, the R6mk2 and the R8 are a newer generation of R bodies that show better battery performance relative to their predecessors (R6 and RP). I have 2 spare batteries for the R6mk 2 and seldom get to use the second one, likewise 2 spare batteries for the R8 and seldom use the second spare. Your mileage may vary, but Canon does seem to be making progress in reducing battery drain.

I have an R6 and even its battery life is not as bad as some make it out to be. I have 4 batteries. I only intended to have 3, but I had orders in at two stores when they were backordered, and both got fulfilled at the same exact time. I could easily get by with 1 battery 90% of the time, 2 batteries for long days, and 3 for very unusual circumstances. I don't even do anything to limit battery usage anymore. No eco mode, quick screen timeouts, or airplane mode. I use geotagging via Bluetooth a lot.

I can shoot a soccer game, take way too many frames, and finish after 70 minutes with 50% battery. I've spent the day at the zoo or Disneyland with the camera on most of the day and used two batteries. I've shot a 5 hour air show on two batteries. I've shot time lapses with one shot every 20 seconds and gotten about 3.5 hours per battery.

All of my batteries are genuine Canon which probably has something to do with it. The LP-E6NH lasts quite a bit longer that the previous generation.

Oct 28, 2023 at 10:29 AM

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Narrowing down the R body list

When I'm shooting my camera never goes to sleep which means IBIS and IS are always energized. I have no EF lenses to compare to but because ISIS and IS on RF lenses use new electromagnetic tech. That uses less power than EF IS. Even if you set your camera to sleep the minimum time is 40 seconds, I think. I have to say I have not really noticed any major battery issues on my ML bodies.

Oct 28, 2023 at 10:53 AM

JimClark
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Narrowing down the R body list

If I were to use my EF 100-400L II with an adaptor and a 1.4 tc on a R6 MKII Will I have access to more than more than one stationary focus point? On my 7D MkII with the 100-400 and a 1.4tc I only get one focus point that is in the center and is stationary,

Oct 28, 2023 at 11:46 AM

gilles.t
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Narrowing down the R body list

JimClark wrote:
If I were to use my EF 100-400L II with an adaptor and a 1.4 tc on a R6 MKII Will I have access to more than more than one stationary focus point? On my 7D MkII with the 100-400 and a 1.4tc I only get one focus point that is in the center and is stationary,
That is the beauty of R series cameras. You get full autofocus functionality and precision beyond F8. I personnally use this combo with R7 and R5 with good results. Lens seems sharper because focus is more precise and consistent.

Oct 28, 2023 at 12:08 PM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.