Another announcement cycle is out of the way, so what’s next from Canon for the EOS R system?

[Deleted member 393411]

Logically, the R6II is aimed at 6- and 5-series DSLR users, APS-C DSLR users, and probably to a lesser extent EOS R/RP users. For all of those, it's a significant upgrade.

Perhaps. I suspect that with the discounting going with the original R6, many will choose that over the R6 II, unless the R6 II has specs that they can't live without. I'm seeing the original R6 now going for as low as AUD $3899. That's a significant cost reduction that means left over money can go to cards, lenses or other accessories.

Given your spelling and your posting times, I suspect you're from Australia

Yes, you are indeed correct (quoting prices in AUD in thread also is a give away lol)

If you have long primes and don't need to crop heavily, the original R6 is probably your best bet

That is not the opinion of most birders that I know. Jan [Wegener] doesn't think 20/24mp (R6/R3) is enough. And, I'm pretty sure he knows a helluva lot more than either of us do about birding photography. Neither does Duade Patton for that matter, nor does Glenn Bartley. I'm currently shooting with my 7D II/300mm f4 IS L and 1.4x TC (mark 1) and that gives me 672mm reach. It's just *about* right for most birds, unless they are very tiny, like fairy wrens. Especially if you don't have a hide handy etc. Most of us work and can't afford the luxury of spending 3 days in a hide! It'd be nice, but my photography is nowhere near good enough. The 500mm f4 on a FF body will give me only 500mm reach (700mm with the 1.4x TC, so about right). R5 and 45mp gives me some room to crop and not lose feather details. It's tempting.

Ideally, I'd like to stay within the Canon family, as it means not losing a bucket load of money in the swapping process and not having to learn a new system. All I'm wanting is for Canon to limit their CrippleHammer™ behaviour and limit their anti competitive behaviour by licencing their RF mount tech to 3rd party lens manufacturers so there is choice for the consumer. That's not a lot to ask for.

 

[AlanF]

Perhaps. I suspect that with the discounting going with the original R6, many will choose that over the R6 II, unless the R6 II has specs that they can't live without. I'm seeing the original R6 now going for as low as AUD $3899. That's a significant cost reduction that means left over money can go to cards, lenses or other accessories.

Yes, you are indeed correct (quoting prices in AUD in thread also is a give away lol)

That is not the opinion of most birders that I know. Jan [Wegener] doesn't think 20/24mp (R6/R3) is enough. And, I'm pretty sure he knows a helluva lot more than either of us do about birding photography. Neither does Duade Patton for that matter, nor does Glenn Bartley. I'm currently shooting with my 7D II/300mm f4 IS L and 1.4x TC (mark 1) and that gives me 672mm reach. It's just *about* right for most birds, unless they are very tiny, like fairy wrens. Especially if you don't have a hide handy etc. Most of us work and can't afford the luxury of spending 3 days in a hide! It'd be nice, but my photography is nowhere near good enough. The 500mm f4 on a FF body will give me only 500mm reach (700mm with the 1.4x TC, so about right). R5 and 45mp gives me some room to crop and not lose feather details. It's tempting.

Ideally, I'd like to stay within the Canon family, as it means not losing a bucket load of money in the swapping process and not having to learn a new system. All I'm wanting is for Canon to limit their CrippleHammer™ behaviour and limit their anti competitive behaviour by licencing their RF mount tech to 3rd party lens manufacturers so there is choice for the consumer. That's not a lot to ask for.

“Reach” depends on pixel density not crop factor. A 7DII has the same pixel density as a 5DSR and hardly any more than an R5. The same lens on a 7DII puts the same number of pixels on a bird as it does with a 5DSR. A 300mm + 1.4xTC is 420mm whether it is on an FF 5DSR or a crop 7DII. It doesn't give you 672mm. An RF 100-400 on an R7 will put the same number of pixels on a bird as a 510mm on a 7DII or a 540mm on an R5 or an 800mm on an R6.

 

[Deleted member 393411]

“Reach” depends on pixel density not crop factor. A 7DII has the same pixel density as a 5DSR and hardly any more than an R5. The same lens on a 7DII puts the same number of pixels on a bird as it does with a 5DSR. A 300mm + 1.4xTC is 420mm whether it is on an FF 5DSR or a crop 7DII. It doesn't give you 672mm. An RF 100-400 on an R7 will put the same number of pixels on a bird as a 510mm on a 7DII or a 540mm on an R5 or an 800mm on an R6.

I beg to differ. Reach and pixel density are NOT the same. Not even close. In an ideal world, you want BOTH reach and pixel density.

 

[AlanF]

I beg to differ. Reach and pixel density are NOT the same. Not even close. In an ideal world, you want BOTH reach and pixel density.

The pixel density of a sensor, d,is defined by the number of pixels per cm of length (or dots per inch for imperial measurements). The maximum resolution of a sensor is given by the Nyquist equation to be d/2 lp/cm. It’s the resolution of the sensor that gives “reach” and determines the number of pixels per duck in your imagee for a given lens. It’s worth while getting your head around this as it helps you choose lens and body for your purposes. Other factors come in like diffraction of course and the diameter of your front lens element. But, the key point is that pixel density is the key to resolution combined with focal length and aperture. I thought the numbers I gave for different focal lengths on the 7DII, 5DSR, R7, R5, and R6 put this clearly.

 

[Deleted member 393411]

The pixel density of a sensor, d,is defined by the number of pixels per cm of length (or dots per inch for imperial measurements). The maximum resolution of a sensor is given by the Nyquist equation to be d/2 lp/cm. It’s the resolution of the sensor that gives “reach” and determines the number of pixels per duck in your imagee for a given lens. It’s worth while getting your head around this as it helps you choose lens and body for your purposes. Other factors come in like diffraction of course and the diameter of your front lens element. But, the key point is that pixel density is the key to resolution combined with focal length and aperture. I thought the numbers I gave for different focal lengths on the 7DII, 5DSR, R7, R5, and R6 put this clearly.

I'm aware of this - my point was, try taking a photo of a bird that's 10m away with a 100mm lens and a 500mm lens (edit: to clarify, with the same camera/sensor combination) - you'll get more pixels on the bird with the 500mm lens than with the 100mm lens. Ergo, reach is indeed important. Otherwise, birders wouldn't bother with big, heavy primes, would they!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm aware of this - my point was, try taking a photo of a bird that's 10m away with a 100mm lens and a 500mm lens (edit: to clarify, with the same camera/sensor combination) - you'll get more pixels on the bird with the 500mm lens than with the 100mm lens. Ergo, reach is indeed important. Otherwise, birders wouldn't bother with big, heavy primes, would they!

You’re the one claiming that your 7DII with a 420mm lens gives you a ‘672mm reach’ while, “500mm f4 on a FF body will give me only 500mm reach.” @AlanF is correctly stating that you’re wrong. A 500 mm f/4 on an R5 would put more ‘pixels on duck’ (i.e., have more ‘reach’) than your 7DII with a 300/4 + 1.4x.

 

[AlanF]

I'm aware of this - my point was, try taking a photo of a bird that's 10m away with a 100mm lens and a 500mm lens (edit: to clarify, with the same camera/sensor combination) - you'll get more pixels on the bird with the 500mm lens than with the 100mm lens. Ergo, reach is indeed important. Otherwise, birders wouldn't bother with big, heavy primes, would they!

As sensors get more and more dense, the need for big heavy primes becomes less and less. Also, the latest AI software for upresolving is quite remarkable. In the near future, it is likely that those big primes will become less and less common and used only by the ultra enthusiasts and pros. They were necessary for low resolution sensors and film.

 

[Deleted member 393411]

You’re the one claiming that your 7DII with a 420mm lens gives you a ‘672mm reach’ while, “500mm f4 on a FF body will give me only 500mm reach.” @AlanF is correctly stating that you’re wrong. A 500 mm f/4 on an R5 would put more ‘pixels on duck’ (i.e., have more ‘reach’) than your 7DII with a 300/4 + 1.4x.

Yes, that is potentially true, but the duck will be smaller, won't it? So, a 200mm on that R5 (even with 45mp vs 20mp) wouldn't give more "reach" would it ;-) focal length is important. I mean, pro motorsport photographers don't take images of a F1 car with a 50mm lens and then crop in just cos they're using a 45mp sensor (vs an 18mp One), do they? Are people this stupid on these forums that common sense doesn't prevail?

As sensors get more and more dense, the need for big heavy primes becomes less and less. Also, the latest AI software for upresolving is quite remarkable. In the near future, it is likely that those big primes will become less and less common and used only by the ultra enthusiasts and pros. They were necessary for low resolution sensors and film.

Have you ever heard the adage that it's "better to get it right in camera"? I guess I am old school photographer. I'm not saying that tools like Topaz Gigapixel aren't useful - they certainly can be, but it is far better to use the right tools, for the right job. For example, an 800mm (say, f5.6) lens coupled to the R5 would be the best of both worlds - combining reach and pixel density on the subject.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, that is potentially true, but the duck will be smaller, won't it? So, a 200mm on that R5 (even with 45mp vs 20mp) wouldn't give more "reach" would it ;-) focal length is important. I mean, pro motorsport photographers don't take images of a F1 car with a 50mm lens and then crop in just cos they're using a 45mp sensor (vs an 18mp One), do they? Are people this stupid on these forums that common sense doesn't prevail?

If you view the ducks on the same monitor at 1:1, the duck imaged with the R5 + 500/4 will be bigger than the same duck imaged with the 7DII + 300/4 + 1.4x.

Evidently there are people on these forums with a very poor grasp of technical issues relevant to photography, you are one such person. If you want to use the word ‘stupid’ to describe them, you may.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Owners of Canon DSLRs, or owners of older RF models such as R and RP are who the R6ii is aimed at,

While that is probably true, I can't see EOS R owners who did not switch to the R6 for 20 MP switching for only 24 MP.
I do know some who are making the switch for the improvements of the video though.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, that is potentially true, but the duck will be smaller, won't it? So, a 200mm on that R5 (even with 45mp vs 20mp) wouldn't give more "reach" would it ;-) focal length is important. I mean, pro motorsport photographers don't take images of a F1 car with a 50mm lens and then crop in just cos they're using a 45mp sensor (vs an 18mp One), do they? Are people this stupid on these forums that common sense doesn't prevail?

Read what I wrote: I gave examples of various lenses with different sensors. Actually, as sensors become more and more dense, the less focal length becomes important and the more aperture for resolution as diffraction becomes the limiting factor.

 

[Deleted member 393411]

If you view the ducks on the same monitor at 1:1, the duck imaged with the R5 + 500/4 will be bigger than the same duck imaged with the 7DII + 300/4 + 1.4x.

Evidently there are people on these forums with a very poor grasp of technical issues relevant to photography, you are one such person. If you want to use the word ‘stupid’ to describe them, you may.

there you go, you can ****** off. I'm outta here. CBF arguing with stupid, arrogant fuckwits.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

As for pixels, do you honestly believe that you could tell the difference between a 24MP shot and a 33MP shot?

People who compare numbers compare numbers.
It is very frustrating not to see any reviewers comparing images.
Surely, someone could have pitted the R6 II against the EOS R.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That is not the opinion of most birders that I know. Jan [Wegener] doesn't think 20/24mp (R6/R3) is enough.

He is not alone, but I do find it strange that before the R5 birders were perfectly happy with 20 MP.
Canon does make it easy to choose the R7 for people not wanting to choose the R6 or R6 II, so there really is no reason to accept 24 MP unless someone needs the speed of the R6 II or the R3.

 

[neuroanatomist]

He is not alone, but I do find it strange that before the R5 birders were perfectly happy with 20 MP.
Canon does make it easy to choose the R7 for people not wanting to choose the R6 or R6 II, so there really is no reason to accept 24 MP unless someone needs the speed of the R6 II or the R3.

I was happy with the 18 MP of the 1D X and I’m just as happy with the 24 MP of the R3. But one reason is that I can handhold and (probably more importantly) afford a 600/4.

It’s been true for many years, and is even more true today with higher density FF sensors, that the real ‘reach advantage’ of crop cameras is that those systems are within the reach of people’s budget, and for some within reach of the strength/stamina needed to carry and use them.

 

[entoman]

I was happy with the 18 MP of the 1D X and I’m just as happy with the 24 MP of the R3. But one reason is that I can handhold and (probably more importantly) afford a 600/4.

It’s been true for many years, and is even more true today with higher density FF sensors, that the real ‘reach advantage’ of crop cameras is that those systems are within the reach of people’s budget, and for some within reach of the strength/stamina needed to carry and use them.

Absolutely. I'm envious of friends who can afford and can carry (let alone hand-hold) a 600/4 or a 400/2.8 on a R3 or 1Dx. I can't do either, which is part of the reason why I use 100-500 and 100-400 on a hi-res R5, and crop when necessary.

Another advantage of using a lens with a shorter focal length and wider angle of view, is that it provides a safety margin when framing birds in flight (I'm not a great marksman), and allows a choice of compositions when cropping in post.

 

[scyrene]

Oh look, a perasonal attack. Post duly reported. Have a nice day.

How it started.

there you go, you can ****** off. I'm outta here. CBF arguing with stupid, arrogant fuckwits.

How it's going.

 

[R5boy]

It's missing a 14 mm 2.8, like the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, I know there's the 15-35 2.8 but that's not 14

 

[Kmccarthy]

I would love a lightweight RF-S 15-85mm (or longer). It would make my R10 the perfect single-lens travel camera. The RF-S 18-150mm is a great lens, but not quite wide enough for landscapes.

 

[GoldWing]

Any news on anything but the R1 is FUBAR