Taking video out because I don't use it is the R6II worth the additional cost. I would be selling my 6 to buy a used II. I shoot stills only so the video upgrade means nothing to me.
It is a more polished camera, IMO. The upgrade was worth it for me personally, but I wasn't particularly price sensitive. Whether it's worth it for someone else is hard to answer. My advice would be to spend some time with one if you can and see if you find the changes worthwhile. There are plenty of reviews online to help you sort out how it differs.
What's the upgrade difference these days? $800 $1000? That's a lot of money I could put to better use if video were not a consideration. The R6 is still a great camera.
I jumped into the R system with the RP in 2019, waiting for the "right" body to justify a heavier camera body investment in the system. I saw the R6 mk 1 as not justifying the investment (I don't really need IBIS as practically all lenses have IS) when it was launched, in particular the 20 MP sensor. As my RPs aged, I finally took the plunge with the R6 MK2, liking in particular the 24MP sensor, better AF, cleaner interface (still / video switch), new accessory/flash shoe, pre-roll buffer and raw burst modes, and longer battery life. I later purchased as second body the R8, and with hindsight (and for my needs) that would have been the one better suited to my stills-oriented usage, again not needing the IBIS even if I do enjoy its use for old EF primes without IBIS. The R8 has the same sensor as the R6 mk2, pretty much the same AF, much better battery life compared to the RP, the new accessory socket and the same pre-roll buffer and raw burst modes.
I use both the R6 and R6II. In general use I don't notice much difference between the two. In specific situations, the Mark II's high frequency flicker compensation has been useful, as has 40fps and better battery life. The Mark II also has slightly better rolling shutter characteristics in e-shutter mode (1/68 vs 1/51 reported here). While the two apparently use the same EVF panel, the Mark II's newer processor drives the panel more smoothly, particularly when transitioning from image capture sequences back to the live view feed; at least that is where I have most noticed it based on how I use the cameras.
Value of the upgrade will depend on the specifics of what you photograph.
It would be worth it to me, but I don't think you'll notice much difference in image quality. The biggie for me is the R6 Mk II has R3/R7 AF style where you have tracking available in all AF patterns: spot, single, expanded, small area, etc. I greatly prefer the newer arrangement over the old R/R5/R6 dedicated whole screen tracking mode and having faith the camera will recognize my subject and track. The R6 MK II also has the newer hot shoe and can be used with the latest flash, controllers, audio, etc. Canon appears to have fixed the problems with the loose shoe, and improved battery life and cooling.
Whisle wrote:
Just how well does the in-camera focus-stacking work.
It works great. I don't like using a tripod and I am not interested in doing focus-stacking in post-processing. I used it mostly for flowers, but it also works for animals that remain still for several seconds.
Eagle was 7 images stacked in camera handheld:
Canon EOS R6m2RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens1000mmf/16.01/125s500 ISO-0.5 EV
Mike_5D wrote:
What's the upgrade difference these days? $800 $1000? That's a lot of money I could put to better use if video were not a consideration. The R6 is still a great camera. That's what is holding me back is the price difference and yes the 6 is a great camera especially since video is not a concern.
Whisle wrote:
That's what is holding me back is the price difference and yes the 6 is a great camera especially since video is not a concern.
Hence my suggestion, if IBIS is not something you prioritize much, look at the R8, also about $1,000 cheaper than the R6 mk2, but with almost identical specs. Some folks don't like the smaller battery format, and the lack of a properly integrated grip option, but if you have IS lenses and don't shoot thousands of pictures a day, the R8 is very competent and future-proof.
Indeed. And beyond those differences, the R8 also controls quite differently then the R6 Mark II. It lacks an AF joystick and a Quick Control Dial, which makes operation more fiddly for someone used to a higher end model.
It also has some weird quirks such as if you reprogram the AF area selection button to anything other than its default, you lose the magnify button during playback(!). You can still zoom in by touch, but that is not my practice and I generally leave the touch screen disabled on my cameras.
I still think it is a good travel camera if you can work around this stuff. I took the R8 with me to Argentina and just posted some images in the Spring 2024 thread.
That said, I would not choose it as my only camera, and my real work gets done with its bigger brothers.
Imagemaster wrote:
It works great. I don't like using a tripod and I am not interested in doing focus-stacking in post-processing. I used it mostly for flowers, but it also works for animals that remain still for several seconds.
Eagle was 7 images stacked in camera handheld:
This is impressive. I had no idea it's possible to focus stack an eagle. I got Helicon Focus for my R5 which generally works great but can occasionally create a border around the area in focus. The eagle photo looks artifact free.
Sold my R6 Tuesday afternoon at 3PM came home and called Buckeye1 ordered the 6II and delivered the next day at a great price. Still getting use to it as somethings are a bit different in the menu (but good).
First shot with the Canon 85mm 1.4L @ 1.4.
What is that difference in amount of focus points exactly?
I remember the amount of focus points of some cameras listed was actually how many positions you could choose for the smallest possible single AF box. Sometimes it is about contrast AF points added to the DPAF (the M50 has that if I'm right), but as far as I know the newer sensors are DPAF only. Technically, with DPAF, every pixel is split in two giving distance information, so from that point of view the camera has 24.000.0000 AF points.
With DSLR's it was clear to me what AF points where, but for mirrorless definitions are needed.
