But with a lot smaller buffer, smaller battery and a lot slower cards. For virtually all other things: you are right, it matches or exceeds the 1dx3.
Upvote
0
Canon officially announces the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Fair and agreed. I just don't understand peoples' interpretation of Canon's lineup. They're always saying they are waiting for their 7D equivalent(despite R7), or their "affordable" sports shooter camera, and it's been here from the start. For two generations now in the R6. Personally I think its all just an extension of people unwilling to improve their craft and they like having an idea to hide behind for a "why" as to why they can't grab shots.
Upvote
0
I haven't had that problem, my numbers always stayed consecutive.If there’s a picture on the card, it might already be too late
Yeah, the 8+3 naming convention is pretty antiquated at this point.
Upvote
0
I use an R8 (24MP, 40fps just like the R1) and an R7 and I have to admit that for my use case, dragonflies, amphibians, macro and opportunistic birding, an APS-C sensor gives me a lot more pixels on target.
The flip side is that the AF and sensor in the R8 runs circles around the R7, so I pick the R8 a lot of times I go out shooting. For family pictures I always use the R8, when possible.
Since my use cases are either at MFD or waaaaay to far away, pixel density helps a lot. So I understand people wanting ‘reach’ without needing even more specialized lenses. I’m guessing that an R7 with a 70-200 is more attractive than an R6 with a 100-300 for a lot of people who care more about weight and price than equivalence and noise.
Upvote
0
I switched from both the 5DsR and 5D Mk IV to the R5 in 2020. The originals R5’s sensor is superior both.
The remedy for photographing small birds is to get 1.4 extender, you’ll have an 840mm lens at (relative) small additional costs.
Upvote
0
Yea would be nice if it was user configurable. So default could still stay at XXXX####, but user could change to XXX##### or even just ########. Would still stay at 8.3 but would give longer counter than the camera would ever record in it's life.
Upvote
0
I do wish they would add at least 1 more digit to the numbering/naming of files on the camera. I routinely shoot more than 10k photos on a full day shooting a track and field event and really hate it when the camera makes a new folder and starts over at 0001.
Upvote
0
Maybe I didn't articulate it well. I fully support your notion above about some wanting the crops. I'm more addressing this constant notion that there is a "missing" camera from Canon's lineup that is preventing photographers from doing the subset of photography they enjoy. All those cameras are already here in my opinion. The only argument I could see is a "modern" high resolution camera, but even then 45mp with the R5 is quite a lot.
Upvote
0
Absolutely.
Canon already have multiple video orientated bodies. You might even say that Canon are abandoning those of us that primarily (or only) shoot stills photography. There are some very nice features in the R1 for stills photographers, but at the entry level and mid-market, I don't get what Canon's goals are for the photographer vs the videographer.
No, we don't. You and I can only speculate about where the costs come from but anything requiring human time plus trial and error equals money.
Canon have existing 45MP sensors and existing 24MP sensors. If it gets a 24MP sensor, why do I buy the R6III and not the R8? Both would have 24MP FF sensors. Unless you already have existing Canon RF gear, I can't see why you would buy the R6-II, or an R6-III if that gets the 24MP sensor.
Upvote
0
I would be happy with less capable video. I don't need 8K video, 4K sure because my TV does that. But I have no plans on getting an 8K TV because there's close to zero content available for it and nobody is making any noise about making such content available. Therefore if I shoot 8K video I need to wait a couple of hours for handbrake to downsample it to 4K before I an play it on my TV.
Upvote
0
Perhaps you have existing Canon EF gear that works flawlessly with an adapter. Perhaps you have a Canon flash. Or perhaps you have a familiarity with the Canon ecosystem. Given Canon's near-50% market share for over a decade, the installed base of interchangeable lens cameras is on the order of 70-80%, so the reality is that a very large majority of current camera owners are already part of the Canon ecosystem.
Upvote
0
I think you missed my comments about the R8. Consumers can also buy the R8 that also has a 24MP FF sensor - for $700 less than the R6-II. Why would you buy the R6-II and not the R8? What's $700 better in the R6-II than the R8?
What's the value proposition today of the R6-II over the R8?
Upvote
0
I would have chosen the R6(II) over the R8 because it has IBIS, which is a valuable feature to me. I expect there are a few other differentiating features too.
Upvote
0
Add handling, battery life, better viewfinder, better overall construction, better buffer, dual card slots…
I upgraded to the R6 from the RP and would not want to go back to a body with such a small viewfinder, no IBIS and no joystick regardless of what the R8 has to offer under the hood.
I upgraded to the R6 from the RP and would not want to go back to a body with such a small viewfinder, no IBIS and no joystick regardless of what the R8 has to offer under the hood.
Upvote
0
if you were doing landscape shots or architecture, working predominantly from a tripod, buffer & IBIS are of little value. Even the viewfinder becomes something of a relic because on a tripod, it is just easier to work with the full screen display on the back. For similar reasons, I don't find any value in dual card slots, especially when doing tethered shooting.
Actually what I want to know is what has better color accuracy, the viewfinder or the screen on the back! Now there's a question!
Upvote
0
Sure, if that's what you do. It's not what I do at all, so everything the R6 does that the R8 does not are absolutely worth it to me. Funny how everyone's experience is different and people value different features in different cameras
Upvote
0
On this vacation, 25C, cloudless, nice breeze, the R8 starts showing the overheating thermometer as soon as a ray of sunshine hits it. Half a minute of 4k60 will add 3 bars, 10 minutes of regular shooting will add another bar.
People in warmer places could opt for the R6II, since that manages its thermals much better. I picked the R8 for its form factor, so the R6II was never a consideration. Ignoring the form factor, I personally don't think IBIS is worth the €1000 (at the time) price difference.
My first R body was an RP, so I knew what I was getting with the R8, small battery, tiny body, no joystick, etc.
Upvote
0
I did miss that, others have covered the differentiating factors effectively above. Whether or not those differences are worth $700 is a personal value judgment based on the desire for those features and the means to afford them. People are asking the same question about the R1 versus the R3, with an even bigger delta.
Your implication is that the R6II is not worth $700 more compared to the R8. If it’s not to you, that’s fine. To others, it is. To some, the $700 difference is not financially significant.
Personally, I am fortunate to be in that last category, but chose the R8 for its smaller form factor since it is my travel camera. Most of my travel shooting is done from a tripod, so IBIS is not especially useful for me. The only apparent detriment is the small battery, but in fact for me it’s an advantage since I often also travel with a full spectrum converted M6 that shares the same battery.
Upvote
0
