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

1 2

4 end

Narrowing down the R body list

JimClark
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Narrowing down the R body list

Can I use my LP-E6N batteries in a R6 MKII or a R7?

gilles.t wrote:
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 12:46 PM

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

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

R6 II - https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/eos-r6-mark-ii?color=Black&type=New

R7 - https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/eos-r7?color=Black&type=New

Oct 28, 2023 at 12:49 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Yes

JimClark wrote:
Can I use my LP-E6N batteries in a R6 MKII or a R7?

Oct 28, 2023 at 01:21 PM

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

p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Narrowing down the R body list

jtford9 wrote:
I definitely do not consider the R7 as working well with birds. I posted in another thread recently that the R7’s features are overrated and overstated. The top 30 fps speed is electronic and the camera even warns you that some images will appear distorted. Basically anything that moves will have rolling shutter distortion, very noticeable on a bird’s wings as well as on the propellers of warbirds. For that matter anything not moving like trees and fences will also be leaning diagonally as you pan with your subject.

Another issue with the R7 is focus shifting, where the focus...Show more →

About this part you wrote. Another issue with the R7 is focus shifting, where the focus box will indicate the subject is in focus but the results will show an area or part of the subject behind your subject is actually in focus.

Perhaps that is because of this? 0:22 to 1:00 shows an example. I've never noticed because I never shot at 30fps or H+.

Oct 28, 2023 at 11:50 PM

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

p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Narrowing down the R body list

I also don't often shoot when it is overcast with the R7. I like my birds colourful. I will shoot in low light and get keepers. I don't need 90 files of a perched bird so slowing it down even more is OK with me. I'll try that out. Still not what Canon advertises but I still always come home with something. With my 7D2 I shot at 8 fps to reduce mirror slap.

Oct 29, 2023 at 12:14 AM

jedibrain
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Narrowing down the R body list

Mike_5D wrote:
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...Show more →

That's pretty consistent with my experience as well. At a tournament weekend which is 3 or 4 games, I'll be at the end of my second or just in to my third battery at the end of it on my R6. And leaving with like 6k shots over 4 70ish minute games. In contrast, my 5d3 would Have been at 50% of the first battery. But I'd have less shots and less shots in focus too. A more than fair trade, but notable difference.

I had forgotten the the R6mkII and R8 use a more energy efficient processor. So they should be better. My M6II uses the same battery as the R8, its older tech too, but I need about one battery per game on that. Those are quite small.

Brian

Oct 29, 2023 at 06:40 AM

Rivermist
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Narrowing down the R body list

Mike_5D wrote:
Yes

Yes, the LP-E6xx batteries are upwards compatible, just lower capacity.

Oct 29, 2023 at 12:18 PM

convergent
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Narrowing down the R body list

Imagemaster wrote:
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?

I've seen a few people make the claim that the R7 (or any R series other than the R3) are somehow unusable for electronic shutter because of issues like rolling shutter that would obviously effect image quality. I personally don't agree with this in general, although maybe there is a certain shooting style or certain use case that results in this. I have both an R7 and an R6II, and I shoot primarily sports and wildlife. I have been using the electronic shutter almost exclusively with both bodies and I've not seen rolling shutter occur once.

Maybe owning an R3 spoils you or something? I don't know but I've seen amazing bird pictures from the R7 and many bird photographers swear by this camera for "pixels on birds". Maybe people shooting with an R3 bring a 600L to the shoot.

For the benefit of the original poster, the R3 is the only body with a "stacked sensor", which dramatically reduces the changes that there will be a rolling shutter effect on the R3. All the other Canon bodies can have it occur, with the R7 being one of the slowest readouts on that chart posted earlier. But that said, I haven't run into it in what I'm doing. If you do run into it, you can just go to mechanical shutter and then the problem is gone, so it is not a reason to not buy an R7.

Oct 31, 2023 at 06:39 AM

convergent
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Narrowing down the R body list

JimClark wrote:
Canon Mirrorless model numbering system is very confusing. is there a good website that would help me narrow down which bodies would work for my style of photography? Wildlife, Birds, Vintage Racecars and Warbirds and Landscape.

Jim

I'll give you my view on this. I first bought an R7 and then later an R6II. I prior had a 7D2 and 5D3 that I shot together with for about 10 years. These both had grips, and going back in the past I had 1 series bodies so like the big camera bodies. But my hands are getting older and don't want to haul around the big stuff any more.

You first need to decide if you want crop or full frame. If you want crop, then the R7 is your best option. Its got a few quirks, but it is an amazing camera. It has the highest pixel density of any current Canon body, so for shooting small birds its great. The body is a little small for my liking, no grip is made for it, it lacks a 3rd dial, and it has a D switch on the back instead of a dial. They also put this bizarre experimental dial (one of the 2 available) around the joystick. While I quickly got used to it, it makes using any other body with it a muscle memory challenge. Other than that, like all the R cameras it is amazing. Fast fps, fast AF with subject and eye detect.

I bought the R7 first and really like it, but started getting the itch for full frame. I don't want to have 2 bodies, so I thought I'd try either an R8, R6, or R6II. My reasoning was the R8 I'd just buy it and keep both the R7 and R8. With the other 2, I'd plan to get rid of the R7. At least that was my logic. I eventually ruled out the R8. The R6II is the newest in the R series and has some refinements, most notably it has the best AF, even better than the R5 or probably R3. The R8 is also newer and it has the R6II same new sensor and the same AF, but they kind of stripped all the extras. The R8 has a very small body, no mechanical shutter, no IBIS, fewer dials, no joystick, and probably a few other things. But images should be identical with the R6II. And one other thing ... since it doesn't have a mechanical shutter, when you take the lens off the sensor is sitting right there with nothing over it. Most of the other R series close the shutter curtain over the sensor when you turn it off so it has some protection. Also remember mirrorless bodies are a lot more shallow than a DSLR so the sensor is right there. So I ruled out the R8 and then decided I did want the R6II features and so I bought a used R6II (on FM) to get the price down a little more.

Following my logic I replaced my 100-400 II with a 100-500 to get myself a little more reach. I really like the R6II. It is the nicest camera body I've ever owned. The full frame R series bodies have a 1.6 crop mode that you can flip on with a switch and your 24MP camera goes to a 9MP camera at 1.6 crop mode. That sounds bad, but if you are going to crop the shot anyways, this gets the subject bigger in the frame and can really help AF. I've started using it quite a bit in certain situations. Hey, my pro body years ago was a Nikon D2H that was 4MP and I think that body was $5K when first released. 9MP is plenty if you have already cropped the shot once taken, for what I do.

What I was really disappointed in was the RF 100-500 and TC1.4. I have a bunch of L lenses and have used a TC1.4 and TC2 for years, although I've gotten rid of my super teles and so don't use the TC2 anymore. But I bought the 100-500 and TC1.4 thinking this would completely satisfy my R7 needs. I guess I didn't pay that much attention to the limitations of the RF TC. First off, the 100-500 must be extended to 300 in order to use it. This is incredibly awkward to deal with. You pretty much have to haul it around almost fully extended and I'm not comfortable quickly swapping it on and off in the field like I have always done it the past. Then the real bummer was I discovered that the RF 70-200 2.8 will not work with any TC. I use my 1.4 on my 70-200 a bit. So now I'm kind of stuck in transition from EF to RF and wish I'd just kept the 100-400 and saved about $2K. So this isn't anything to do with the R bodies, but hopefully Canon will come to some better engineering feat to make a better TC.

I'm primarily using the R6II right now. I just like it a lot better. I still have the R7 and probably should sell it, but I can't bring myself to do it at this point. Good luck with your quest. Bottom line in all of this is that all the R series bodies are amazing.

Oct 31, 2023 at 07:02 AM

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

p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Narrowing down the R body list

To avoid removing the TC off the 100-500 for local transportation I used a tool box. Image attached. When carrying the gear I use a PD shoulder strap and have a small lens pouch attached to the belt for the TC when I don't need it.

Then someone alerted this to me. Top loading so no danger of not forgetting to zip up a backpack. That happened to me over 10 years ago with a new 70-200 F4 IS. Quick drop in and has a shoulder strap. I like it so much I took it to Europe this year. I packed it with clothes and checked it. We bought a bigger suitcase so since need a pair of shorts, two T-shirts and some skivvies it will fit inside. My wife loves my wardrobe

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B01BDW1VHE/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I was not going to post another video but oh well. My exact evaluation. I was amazed at how it picked up small bird heads in big ponds. Just picks out the bird in flight. Finds the eye in scenes with a lot of distractions. AF box constantly changes shape for BIF as it should but hangs on. My first hour out with it. Image attached.

I can't really comment on the 30fps in low light/contrast. My only real complaint and the first time I've been a little disappointed with Canon since 2005 is the loud mechanical shutter. I pretty much use ES all of the time but never shot in H+ because I don't feel like editing all of those files. ES has its issues with rolling shutter but most of the time I do OK. I do like to shoot with it in good light because the birds are just more colourful. For low light I have my R6II.

Canon EOS R7 RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM lens 500mm f/7.1 1/2500s 500 ISO 0.0 EV

Oct 31, 2023 at 09:16 AM

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

p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Narrowing down the R body list

I should have added. With the R7's readout speed it struggling at 30fps in low light poor/contrast situations does not surprise me.

Oct 31, 2023 at 09:26 AM

Scott Stoness
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Narrowing down the R body list

JimClark wrote:
Initially I was looking at the R6 MKII but then saw people talking about the R7 working well with Birds. Budget is a consideration. Right now i have the EF100-400L II and a 24-70 F4 and a toking 11-16 2.8. I was kind of thinking of keeping the smaller lenses and using an adapter and just replace the 100-400L II with something else. Maybe the RF 100-400 or possible the 100-500. Retired and living fixed income and don't sell images so budget is a fairly bog consideration.

I would consider the R8 vs R7.

R8 is $1500, 24mpx, full frame, 40fps, and and does great video.
[R6ii is more expensive, and has IBIS as the key difference, but aside from IBIS they are virtually the same. IBIS is not needed if you have IS lens]

R7 is $1500, 33mpx. an action crop sensor.

The 100-400 II will work on both R8 and R7 but the R8 will have more resolution if you zoom with your feet.

The 24-70F4 will work as at 24-70 on the R8. But if you go R7, with 1.6x your 24-70 will be bit long for landscape.

The Tokina 11-16 is an APSC lens. So it will work but be like a 17-30mm on the R7 but will be useless on the R8. On the R8will only cover 2/3 of the sensor.

Your challenge is that 100-400 is too short for birds on FF -- and there is no good equivalent to 11-16 in RF for r7 yet.

I would say based on current lens/bodies - you should be inclined to R7. I suspect the 11-16 will adapt well and the 24-70 f4 will work as it did before on your apsc body, and the 100-400 with 1.6x crop will work well too for birds because of 1.6x. This would just cost you $1500 for r7.

The R8 and 100-500 would be great too but that would cost you $5000 for marginal gain. And you would likely prefer 100-500 with 1.6x for birds anyway, if you really wanted more reach.

Oct 31, 2023 at 10:08 AM

melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Narrowing down the R body list

The R8 doesn’t have a full mechanical shutter. This means you have to choose between electronic first curtain, which can produce undesirable bokeh with fast lenses, and fully electronic, which has bad rolling shutter on this camera due to the slow readout speed.

I accept that some people “can’t see” these effects, or don’t care about them, but I’d rather have a used R6.

Nov 01, 2023 at 01:32 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · 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).

70-200/4 Rf isn't that much lighter, maybe 3 oz. The Rf 2.8 is lighter than EF counterparts

The bodies, you save about half a pound, about 1.5 lbs vs 2 lbs, for the full featured bodies. The Rp on mirrorless and Rebels on DSLR closer to a lb. So you can save some, but if you buy heavy lenses, you could easily get heavier gear, half pound on the body isn't huge, especially if you go for the max performance fast lenses

Nov 01, 2023 at 11:46 AM

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

p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Narrowing down the R body list

My travel kits:
5D4 + 16-35 f4 + 24-105 original + 100-400 II = 8.56 lbs
5D4 + Voightlander 20mm + 24-105 L original + 100-400 II = 7.55 lbs
R5 + 14-35 + 24-105L + 100-500 = 7.55 lbs all RF
R5 + 16 f2.8 + 24-105L + RF 100-400 = 4.89 lbs
R5 is 5 oz less than 5D4 and R7 is 4 oz less than 90D by my measurements. Adapter is 4 oz.

Edited on Nov 01, 2023 at 12:42 PM · View previous versions

Nov 01, 2023 at 12:35 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Narrowing down the R body list

Jeff Nolten wrote:
5D4 + Voightlander 20mm + 24-105 L original + 100-400 II = 7.55 lbs
R5 + 14-35 + RF 24-105L + 100-500 = 7.55 lbs !

However:
R5 + 16 f2.8 + 24-105L + RF 100-400 = 4.89 lbs i.e. 2 3/4 lb lighter travel kit

That's what I enjoy about Canon mirrorless. I have a choice between high performance lenses and lower performance lenses that save weight, all on the same body. I still use lenses like the EF 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 but have added the RF 24-105 STM and 24-240, two lenses that wouldn't have been possible with a DSLR.

Nov 01, 2023 at 12:40 PM

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

p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Narrowing down the R body list

One of the benefits of the R5 is that the RF 16 can easily be cropped to cover the range of 16-24 and likewise the 100-400 can easily be cropped to cover 100-600 Same could be said for 5Ds but I never owned that camera.

Nov 01, 2023 at 12:48 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Narrowing down the R body list

Jeff Nolten wrote:
One of the benefits of the R5 is that the RF 16 can easily be cropped to cover the range of 16-24 and likewise the 100-400 can easily be cropped to cover 100-600 Same could be said for 5Ds but I never owned that camera.

RF 16 might be very nice on aps, and I've thought if cropped it to 18mm ff equivalent on ff might be quite good.

Nov 01, 2023 at 12:58 PM

tomasr
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Narrowing down the R body list

Jeff Nolten wrote:
One of the benefits of the R5 is that the RF 16 can easily be cropped to cover the range of 16-24 and likewise the 100-400 can easily be cropped to cover 100-600 Same could be said for 5Ds but I never owned that camera.

I fear it may the case that it rather needs to be cropped to 24mm equiv. The corners barely exist; it has to be one of the worst 16mm samples on the-digital-picture. I just don't see how this can possibly translate into usable image.

Nov 01, 2023 at 04:24 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Narrowing down the R body list

tomasr wrote:
I fear it may the case that it rather needs to be cropped to 24mm equiv. The corners barely exist; it has to be one of the worst 16mm samples on the-digital-picture. I just don't see how this can possibly translate into usable image.

You're not supposed to evaluate the uncorrected images.

Nov 01, 2023 at 04:30 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.