Michael Clark said:

The move from DSLR to the 2020 and later EOS MILCs were all a pretty big jump. It wasn't just the 6-Series. (The R and RP were a bit more hit or miss how much an improvement they were over the 5D Mark IV or 6D Mark II - it all depended upon one's use case. For example, many shooters preferred the optical viewfinders of the DLSRs to the limited resolution and refresh rate EVFs of the R and RP.)

Click to expand...

True! Especially by the time Canon was playing catch-up.

Michael Clark said:

I've never known of anyone who had weather resistance issues with a 6D, 6D Mark II, R6, or R6 Mark II. Are the 6-Series bodies as solid as the 5-Series bodies (DSLR or MILC)?

Click to expand...

I have. It’s a sad day when that happens. Probably though just a numbers game, and the character of s/he who holds the gear. And the environment is also a factor: wet campsites, animals enclosures, soggy moss, damp gear bags, etc.

Michael Clark said:

You got slightly better DR from ISO 400-800. You got moderately better DR at ISO 100-200.

Click to expand...

Better is better. Enough to notice when photons are scarce. Enough to make someone pay for it.

Michael Clark said:

"Double the pixels." What?!?! 30.4MP (5D Mark IV) is not twice 26.2MP (6D Mark II).

Click to expand...

Okay, okay! I stand humbled. Silly of me. The idea stands, but my statement stinks. Truly, enthusiasm swept me up. But I own this slip in the back and forth.

Michael Clark said:

"Better low end detail". What is that? Low end of what?

Click to expand...

That DR discussion above…

Michael Clark said:

"Better daylight tolerance." Again, what is that? Are you repeating DR that you already brought up above?

Click to expand...

1/4000 vs 1/8000 might seem like a small detail, but it isn’t for some people. It’s an ND filter, or smaller aperture by a stop. Unlike ISO, this is an easy ceiling to hit.

Michael Clark said:

"Better snot resistance." See above. No one has had major issues with 6D bodies and weather resistance.

Click to expand...

I’m glad this is your experience! I have my own colleagues. See above.

Michael Clark said:

The 5D Mark IV and 5D Mark III both had a shutter life rating of 150,000. The 6D Mark II had no publicly released shutter rating from Canon.

Click to expand...

That is the sales pitch. My Rebel is still going strong, which tickles me pink. But still, they’re making you pay for the sales pitch and not luck.

BTW, really appreciate your thoughts on this. I think my concerns or observations mostly stand within my context, but I’ve read many of your remarks over time and taken away good insights. Ditto for others here. It’s a pleasure to be vocal in the crowd. I’ll try to listen more than rant.

I’m certainly less on the pre-release therapy side and more on the let’s see what reality brings side of the fence now.

m4ndr4ke said:

I can’t speak for B&H, they’re irrelevant on this side of the Atlantic, but the EF 50mm f/1.2 doesn’t attach to a Canon mirrorless camera in any different way than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art does. For the price the canon EF lens costs, if buying new is impossible, better buy a second hand Sigma and send it in for maintenance. You could probably buy two or three of the Sigma lens for the price of one EF 50mm f/1.2.


Jesus
I’ve passed on the RF 50mm f/1.2 for about the same price twice this year, here in Portugal (not imported). Actually cheaper, once.

Click to expand...

It's the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 in EF mount (also Nikon F mount) that has been discontinued, not the EF 50mm f/1.2 L.

P-visie said:

Canon in the Netherlands has the EF 50mm f1.2 lens in it’s webstore and in stock, as have other large photoshops (for 1699€, incl. VAT, if you are interested ).

Click to expand...

I think he meant the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART, which is listed at B&H as 'Discontinued"?

scyrene said:

Higher resolution sensors can reveal lens flaws more clearly when viewed 100%. But a higher resolution sensor cannot resolve less detail with the same lens than a lower resolution sensor at the image level (when all other shooting parameters are equal). And if you downscale from a higher MP sensor to match the lower one, the images will be virtually identical - the higher resolution sensor should always be at least as good, and maybe better, as pixel-level noise will be finer. Technically-minded forum users have been explaining these things for many years (I'm simply paraphrasing them).

Click to expand...

Depending how the pixel pitch ratios work out, you could theoretically have issues resizing from a higher resolution file to a lower resolution one. But it would likely be more in terms of odd artifacts than increased blur.

Philnick said:

Remember that while Canon may make more money on each full-frame body they sell, they sell a lot more APS-C bodies, which means they risk alienating lots of R7 users if they make the R7 II into an R5/R6 with an R7 sensor. You've gotten two generations of the R5 and R6 (with an R6 III coming). Let us have an improved - not enlarged and upscaled - R7 II.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of those APS-C bodies Canon made tons of money on were not 7-Series bodies. They were x0D, xx0D/Rebel, and xx00D/Rebel bodies. I'd venture to say they've also sold a ton more R10, R50, and R100 bodies than R7 bodies.

You can claim Canon risks alienating "lots of R7 users" if they go back to the layout of the 7D, 7D mark II, 80D, 90D, etc. How do you know they didn't alienate a LOT MORE potential R7 buyers who took a pass because of the ridiculous R7 control layout? I've heard MANY say they didn't buy the R7 because it was laid out too different from their R6 or R5 bodies. You're the ONLY person I've ever heard say they want the R7 Mark II to continue the divergent layout.

Again, look at history. Canon introduced the EOS R with the goofy little Multi-Function slide bar thingy. A few people liked it. The vast majority who bought an EOS R hated it and wanted Canon to not put one on the next body they would consider buying. Canon decided they could sell more cameras by making the R5 and R6 closer to the traditional 5-Series, 6-Series, and 7-Series layout and eliminated the Multi-Function slide bar from subsequent bodies.

Philnick said:

PPS You also have not responded to my suggestions of simply adding another control dial to an R7 II in the standard location next to the rear screen and letting it take a battery grip. You probably know that the menu system on EOS cameras makes it trivially easy to disable the dial around the joystick if it's such an annoyance. Oh, and in case you didn't know, the joystick is a bit of an anachronism now, since on the R series, you can use your thumb on the rear screen to move the AF focus point while looking through the viewfinder, which allows for more fine control than the joystick does. I'll occasionally push in on the joystick to center the AF point, but that's about all I use it for.

Click to expand...

Again, not everyone's thumbs can reach the LCD touchscreen from the right side of the camera. My left thumb is otherwise occupied seeing that it is attached to my left hand, which properly supports the weight of the lens and camera with the heel and palm. My left fingers operate the ring(s) on the lenses. On some zoom lenses the left thumb moves the zoom ring while the fingers operate the focus ring if needed.

The 5D Mark IV allows setting AF points with the LCD screen in Live View. I've used it when doing tripod mounted landscape work. But that's also with a wired shutter release when the time comes to actually take the photo, so I'm not holding the camera at all in that situation.

I also shoot left-eyed because Canon cameras have enough diopter adjustment to accommodate my uncorrected left eye, but not my more myopic uncorrected right eye. So my nose is pressed on the right half of the touchscreen. I used to wear contact lenses (which the diopter adjustment could barely accommodate in the opposite direction due to advancing presbyopia), but as I've aged my eyes no longer tolerate the semirigid RGPs required for my astigmatism that I wore for around 40 years. I can't stand shooting with eyeglasses, so I take them off and use the viewfinder adjusted to to work with my uncorrected left eye.

DocInfoSci said:

Moving from the 6D -> 6D II was meh, but from the 6D II to (spiritually, at least) the R6 it was wow. There are far fewer differences between the R6 and R5 when you take a photo or dunk the body in animal snot than what were with the 6D series vs 5D series. Similarly, the RP vs R or 5D.4 was meh. Canon could have kept with meh, but it ran strong. More my point about the 5D.4 comparison and use of the 1D III -ish chip. Canon didn't just hand the masses a road apple. They handed them a quality product by which only resolution and mode selection were the big differentiators.

So in moderns times resolution. In the before times pretty much well the whole pie. Steering this back to my original moaning, I'm just hoping the R6.3, despite apparent advancement, isn't inching us back to the whole pie scenario.

Click to expand...

The move from DSLR to the 2020 and later EOS MILCs were all a pretty big jump. It wasn't just the 6-Series. (The R and RP were a bit more hit or miss how much an improvement they were over the 5D Mark IV or 6D Mark II - it all depended upon one's use case. For example, many shooters preferred the optical viewfinders of the DLSRs to the limited resolution and refresh rate EVFs of the R and RP.)

I've never known of anyone who had weather resistance issues with a 6D, 6D Mark II, R6, or R6 Mark II. Are the 6-Series bodies as solid as the 5-Series bodies (DSLR or MILC)? No. But then the 5-Series is not as tough as the 1-Series (or the R3), either. Having said that, way back at the beginning of this discussion I said that the R6 Mark III "matching" the R5 in a way that was reminiscent of the 6D Mark II matching the 5D Mark III was, in both cases, on the spec sheet, but not in terms of build quality.

For CAD $2k in moving from the 6D II to 5D.4 you got double the pixels, better snot resistance, better daylight tolerance, better low end detail preservation, more flaps before failure, etc.

Click to expand...

You got slightly better DR from ISO 400-800. You got moderately better DR at ISO 100-200.

"Double the pixels." What?!?! 30.4MP (5D Mark IV) is not twice 26.2MP (6D Mark II).
"Better low end detail". What is that? Low end of what?
"Better daylight tolerance." Again, what is that? Are you repeating DR that you already brought up above?

"Better snot resistance." See above. No one has had major issues with 6D bodies and weather resistance. Here's a diagram of the sealing points of the 6D Mark II.


In this teardown of the EOS R, Roger Cicala referred to it as "a Canon 6D Mark II quality mirrorless camera." He's talking about the R, not the RP.

The 5D Mark IV and 5D Mark III both had a shutter life rating of 150,000. The 6D Mark II had no publicly released shutter rating from Canon. Website ShutterCheck claims it has a 150,000 actuation rating. Take that however you want. The 6D had a 100,000 shutter life rating. Canon shutters tend to either fail early in their life or go well past the rating number. The 7D Mark II had a shutter rating of 200,000. My copy is well past that mark and the shutter still works flawlessly. I've got photojournalist friends who put over 1,000,000 clicks on original 1D X bodies that were rated for 400,000 actuations.

David - Sydney said:

The RP is a mirrorless 6Dii and still being sold.
The EOS R was selling for a long time after the R6/R5 were released.
The R5 is still a great camera and 45mp is a lot more than 24 (or 32) at least in some minds. The R6iii will never be able shoot 8k

Click to expand...

What cheaper model has been released since the RP with the RP's spec sheet?

The EOS R was cheaper than the R6 and R5 by the time the R6 & R5 came out, not more expensive.

The R5 is still a great camera. But if the R6 comes with a 30+ MP sensor for around the same price as the R5 is currently commanding on the NEW market, the R5 will disappear from authorized Canon dealers' shelves.

If an older, higher end model is selling new for less than the newer mid-tier product with the same basic capabilities, then dealers will continue to stock the older model as long as Canon will let them because it's easier to sell an older model with the same capabilities if it's cheaper than the newer model.

If an older, higher end model is selling new for more than the newer mid-tier product with the same basic capabilities, then dealers will not continue to stock the older model because it's very hard to sell an older model when there's a newer model on their shelves that can do the same thing and is priced lower. They'll return those units to Canon for credit. Canon will then use them for parts sources for the next seven years or so until they drop that model from official support.

Walrus said:

I did some interesting close up stuff with 135 L + EF2.0 II back in the days, thanks to its already short MFD plus the extender, and I can tell you it was pretty sharp when stopped down

View attachment 226677View attachment 226679View attachment 226680 View attachment 226678

Click to expand...

Well, I guess if you consider those shots to be sharp... (maybe it's the resizing?)

EF 135mm f/2 L, 5D Mark III, ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/200 (handheld). You can see the windings on the lower strings at 100%.


EF 135mm f/2 L, 5D Mark III, ISO 3200, f/2.2, 1/100 (handheld). Look at the string windings at the tailpiece, as well as the stitching on the shirt at 100%.


EF 135mm f/2 L, 7D Mark II, ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/320 (handheld). Textile weaves and whiskers everywhere.


EF 135mm f/2 L, 5D Mark III, ISO 400, f/2.2, 1/250 (handheld).


EF 135mm f/2 L, 5D Mark IV, ISO 1600, f/2.5, 1/160 (handheld).


EF 135mm f/2 L, 5D Mark IV, ISO 3200, f/2.2, 1/500 (handheld). Look at the detail on Jerry Phillips' jacket at 100%.

Click said:

Another beautiful series. I especially like the 3rd shot.

Click to expand...

Thanks, catadioptric bokeh is not all donuts with the right background and can often be interesting.

Another beautiful series. I especially like the 3rd shot.

Here is a first test shot from the Vivitar 600 Solid Cat. MFD is 23 ft and this is with the R5 at ISO 10,000 (dark day), but it looks like the 600 is much sharper than the 800 and may be OK on the R7. Still not ideal for hummers due to MFD but may turn out to be useful after all. Interested to see what a sunny day reveals.

Michael Clark said:

The one thing I have found it doesn't do well is take an extender. When I needed to send my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II to CPS for a new IS unit, I used the EF 135/2 + EF1.4X III at a football game. I was disappointed with the results. Focus was accurate (I had done AFMA with the combination in preparation for the game), but the distance sharpest in focus was not up to what I expected out of the 135/2 even when accounting for an added extender. Acutance was also well under what I get out of the 70-200/2.8 IS II. The bare 135/2 beats the 70-20/2.8 IS II at 135mm fairly handily, and the zoom is no slouch at all.

Click to expand...

I did some interesting close up stuff with 135 L + EF2.0 II back in the days, thanks to its already short MFD plus the extender, and I can tell you it was pretty sharp when stopped down

Exploreshootshare said:

I absolutely love the RF 100-500mm! It really is my favorite lens and it is so helpful for landscapes, details and of course wildlife.

Click to expand...

Yep, lots of fun for whale breaches and tail slaps even mounted on a RP! My R5 was in my underwater housing

David - Sydney said:

The high 2nd hand price of the ef100-400 and the cost of the 1.4x extender meant that the rf100-500 was a better choice for me. Lighter and shorter as well. I never thought that I would use those focal lengths as much as I have

Click to expand...

I absolutely love the RF 100-500mm! It really is my favorite lens and it is so helpful for landscapes, details and of course wildlife.

Michael Clark said:

In the entire history of the R5 and R6 series, the chief differentiator has been Resolution.

Click to expand...

I agree. It comes down to that in terms of the sensor. In the history of the 6D vs 5D it was also body, shutter, lifetime of flaps, sealing, etc.

Michael Clark said:

If "the R6 tracks more like the 5D Mark IV", that just proves the point.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Moving from the 6D -> 6D II was meh, but from the 6D II to (spiritually, at least) the R6 it was wow. There are far fewer differences between the R6 and R5 when you take a photo or dunk the body in animal snot than what were with the 6D series vs 5D series. Similarly, the RP vs R or 5D.4 was meh. Canon could have kept with meh, but it ran strong. More my point about the 5D.4 comparison and use of the 1D III -ish chip. Canon didn't just hand the masses a road apple. They handed them a quality product by which only resolution and mode selection were the big differentiators.

Put this way:
For CAD $2k in moving from the R6 to R5 you get double the pixels and an LCD display. I guess more EVF pixels.
For CAD $2k in moving from the 6D II to 5D.4 you got double the pixels, better snot resistance, better daylight tolerance, better low end detail preservation, more flaps before failure, etc.

So in moderns times resolution. In the before times pretty much well the whole pie. Steering this back to my original moaning, I'm just hoping the R6.3, despite apparent advancement, isn't inching us back to the whole pie scenario.

Michael Clark said:

My prediction, based on past history, is that if the R6 Mark III is essentially the R5 in a lower grade body, then the R5 will very soon disappear from dealers' inventories. It won't be up to Canon corporate. The dealers will return unsold R5 bodies to Canon for credit towards future purchases.

The (2017) 6D Mark II was essentially a (2012) 5D Mark III on the spec sheet. Though the 5D mark IV had supplanted the 5D Mark III in 2016, they were still available from many dealers until the 6D Mark II came along. Then the 5D Mark III vanished form new inventories practically overnight. It may or may not have been Canon corporate requiring them to return unsold 5D Mark III. The dealers surely realized the 5D Mark III would be a hard sell with the 6D Mark II priced roughly $1K less and so they returned them to Canon for credit on their balance sheets.

Click to expand...

The RP is a mirrorless 6Dii and still being sold.
The EOS R was selling for a long time after the R6/R5 were released.
The R5 is still a great camera and 45mp is a lot more than 24 (or 32) at least in some minds. The R6iii will never be able shoot 8k

Michael Clark said:

You wife let you buy a lens you didn't even have a body to use it on? She's a keeper for sure!

Click to expand...

I did have a spreadsheet for my migration to r mount. The R5 had been teased for at least 3 months by that time and- of course- the R5 is smaller and lighter than my 5Div

DocInfoSci said:

But really it's the 5D.4 / R vs the 6D.2 / RP we're talking about for the advent of the R5 and R6. The former was noticeably better at the bottom end. Things didn't fully sync up until ~ 3200 -- and that's with fewer pixels on the 6D II. The R6 tracks much more like the 5D.4.

Canon could have just moved the R (~5D.4) chip into the R6. It would have tracked with the 6D II vs 5D.4 gap, but now vs. the R5 in terms of further line differentiation. They went better, thankfully. As pointed out earlier, the R5 and R6 perform virtually the same along the numeric options, and thus for lower values likely to be used no quality difference.

Click to expand...

The EOS R and EOS RP were one-off models to get Canon into the FF MILC at a time when lower end camera sales (i.e. APS-C) were drying up and FF was becoming a larger and larger part of the overall market. Introduced in 2018, they had to have been on the planning board since at least 2015 considering how long Canon takes to get a product to market.

In the entire history of the R5 and R6 series, the chief differentiator has been Resolution.

If "the R6 tracks more like the 5D Mark IV", that just proves the point.

The 6D Mark II came along 5 years after the 5D Mark III. The R6 came along 4 years after the 5D Mark IV. Other than resolution, the 6-Series trails the 5-Series by one model cycle (4-5 years) in terms of many features and spec sheet numbers.

Again, compare the EOS R5 to the next generation EOS R6 Mark II:

Continued reflections of hummingbirds. This time a more contemporary lens. This is a TT artisan 250mm f/5.6 Reflex, which is pretty much a clone of the somewhat rare and expensive Minolta of the same dimensions. I have often been curious about the Minolta but never was willing to choke up the asking price, so when this came along, I thought I would give it a try. Not bad for the money. Today was very dark and grey, so shots only possible due to the faster f stop, but still most are at ISO 6400, so some loss of low contrast detail due to noise reduction since cats are pretty low contrast to begin with. First two shots from the R5 and the remainder from R7 as not enough reach for most of the brush shots with the R5. The Vivitar 600mm Solid Cat just arrived and it appears to be identical to the 800 I already have except for one extra magnification element in the 800, so MFD is the same with less focal length. Not useful for my little birds, but the lens in in pristine shape.

Maximilian said:

But you are? I see...

Click to expand...

I don't have to be.

AlanF said:

When the rubber of the R7 eyepiece needed replacing after about 6 months from new, Canon tried to get out of its warranty obligations on the grounds the eyepiece was an accessory! Compare this with Swarovski. The one of the rubber eyecup rings of my 3-year old binoculars came off and was lost, and Swarovski within two days sent me a pair of new eyecups as it was within their 10 year warranty.

Click to expand...

Swarovski includes the warranty in the pricing .

Michael Clark said:

Compare the spec sheets of the 2012 5D Mark III to the 2017 6D Mark II. They're practically identical, other than 1/3 stop difference in X-sync and 1/4000 vs 1/8000. On the other hand, the 6D Mark II had higher resolution (26MP) than the 5D Mark III (22MP), though not as high as the 2016 5D Mark IV (30.4). The 6D II had an articulated touch screen, WiFi and *** built in, DiG!C 7 vs DiG!C 5+, slightly more cross-type AF points, slightly higher burst rate, and flicker reduction (which all Canon bodies with less than 4 digits in the model name (xD, X0D, xx0D) beginning with the 7D Mark II in 2014 got).

DR at all ISOs was practically identical. SNR was also nearly identical.

View attachment 226671

Click to expand...

But really it's the 5D.4 / R vs the 6D.2 / RP we're talking about for the advent of the R5 and R6. The former was noticeably better at the bottom end. Things didn't fully sync up until ~ 3200 -- and that's with fewer pixels on the 6D II. The R6 tracks much more like the 5D.4.

Canon could have just moved the R (~5D.4) chip into the R6. It would have tracked with the 6D II vs 5D.4 gap, but now vs. the R5 in terms of further line differentiation. They went better, thankfully. As pointed out earlier, the R5 and R6 perform virtually the same along the numeric options, and thus for lower values likely to be used no quality difference.

DocInfoSci said:

Prior to the R, the primary general purpose 35mm DSLRs for Canon were the 5D and 6D series, right? The 5D was configured in a way that it best assured things got done for people who needed to do it—whatever that was—and priced it accordingly. The 6D was configured to be technically eligible: For a much lower price, one got a 35mm sensor with OK light sensitivity, half the shutter ceiling, and passable weather sealing. Thus it was in one shade or another for years.

Click to expand...

Compare the spec sheets of the 2012 5D Mark III to the 2017 6D Mark II. They're practically identical, other than 1/3 stop difference in X-sync and 1/4000 vs 1/8000. On the other hand, the 6D Mark II had higher resolution (26MP) than the 5D Mark III (22MP), though not as high as the 2016 5D Mark IV (30.4). The 6D II had an articulated touch screen, WiFi and *** built in, DiG!C 7 vs DiG!C 5+, slightly more cross-type AF points, slightly higher burst rate, and flicker reduction (which all Canon bodies with less than 4 digits in the model name (xD, X0D, xx0D) beginning with the 7D Mark II in 2014 got).

DR at all ISOs was practically identical. SNR was also nearly identical.