My R6 original has log view assist, c-log3, and oversampled 4k 60p! I loved shooting it in japan last year and is more than rnough camera for me still! Just need to save up more money for the rf lenses
Hehe I feel the same way about my R5, which I got just a month before the mkii was released. I now in a need for second camera body and I am strongly considering the original R6. Same controls, (just no top LCD) as R5, same ergonomics, same batteries, but smaller file sizes. Only thing... weight and compact size favor the R8. I am going back and forth on this all the time!The R6 is still an incredible camera. I've been debating getting a second hand R6 instead of the R6II and with that $900 USD savings buy a used 28-70 f/2.8 STM. After that it might be a few years to save for more RF glass! At least anything that zooms or has an "L" in the name
The thing that leads me more to the original R6 over the R8 is the bigger battery in the R6 with the percentage indicator. My M5 which uses the same battery as the R8 drains so quickly that I need to remember to charge it before each use. With the R6 you can check exactly how much percent is left but with the R8 you just get 3 bars.
Yes, I love the package the R8 offers and the price point is now really compelling.
Yes, that scroll wheel and for me personally the joystick heavily favor the R6... if the R8 had at least one of them. IBIS is not an issue/ a need for me. While hiking the R8 works wonderful the lightweight joby tripod and for long-exposures (waterfalls e.g.) I´d use that anyway.
Resolution comparison can indeed be confusing. The quoted sensor resolution (e.g. 20mpx, 32mpx etc) refers to the multiplication of the number of pixels along the length and breath of the sensor. To work out ‘resolution’, it is the number of pixels along either the length or breath that is compared (i.e. how many pixels can fit in a given length, which is a linear comparison). For instance, a 24mpx FF sensor (3:2 ratio, 36x24mm) will have 6000 by 4000 pixels, whereas a 32.5mpx FF sensor has approximately 6982 by 4655 pixels. Comparing the number of pixels along either the length or breath shows that the 32.5mpx sensor has 16% more pixels over the 24mpx.
It isn't as bad, when you get used to it. At least with exposure and basic autofocus controls. During the field works (nature/wildlife inventories, etc.) I'm using R6II (with tele) and R8 (with standard/wide angle or macro). In both cameras upper dials control time and apperture. While I use mostly Auto Iso, at R6II, control dial set exposure conpensation. At R8 I do it by holding "up" on control pad and adjusting main dial (next to shutter button). In both cameras I use quite similar back button focus setup, at least for two buttons.
).Shooting with 2 ergonomically different cameras can quickly turn into a nightmare.
Thx for sharing your experience. I´m with you on scroll wheel. The thing is without a joystick and a scroll wheel the handling of the camera changes drastically imho. Plus, since I heavily rely on the EVF and the joystick it really changes my personal style.
I´m pretty impressed by the R8 (I tested it for a few hours already) and can do with the low res EVF and some quirks. *** is still on my wishlist, I don´t care if drains the battery too much. If SP can do it, cameras should be able to do it as well. But for the R8, GSP would ruin the small form factor...I'm very happy with size and performacne of R8. From my perspective, I'd change control pad for control dial. And no more other major changes are needed.
(Since "*** in R cameras" is now banned topic at the forum, I won't mention it
Hehe very interesting experiences. thx for sharing.
- I decided to get the R8 because for hiking and family trips it just fits perfectly. The R6 has nearly the weight and size of the R5, so no benefit there. And if shooting with two different ergonomics set-ups at once is too annoying, I'll rent a second body for the diamond wedding and a couple of other events.
I think the jump between an EOS R and 5D4 would be a massive difference because of the view finder and even the wayt he AF works is very different.
Strangely, using a Canon MILC or DSLR together with a Leica M is OK with me, maybe because the cameras are totally different in their concept ergonomics.
You are absolutely correct. I am afraid resolution is a concept that can be and does get misunderstood. "The resolution of a system is based on the minimum distance r at which the points can be distinguished as individuals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution As such it is a linear measurement of distance. The relative resolution of sensors of similar size is given by the ratio of the square roots of their number of pixels, not their total number. The resolution of lenses and sensors you read in charts and specifications is always given as a linear measurement, like lines per mm or line pairs per mm or picture height, or dots per inch - all are linear resolutions.
Yes we are dealing with an area X*Y, so a big increse in megapixels doesn't always relate to a big increase in actual sensor resolution. I'm finding a slight increase in detail between the 24mp R6ii and the 45mp R5. I honestly thought there would be more. Sure...bigger files and more pixels for sure, but not that much more actual detail at 100% or even both viewed side by side large. The R5 has 87% more pixels, 36% more inlear resolution, however I would say that the increase in actual detail that is observable in the final images (while subjective) is a lot lower, maybe 10% more at most.
In my view, in order to obtain more detail, all else being equal (lens, subject distance, etc.), it's not only about having a higher resolution sensor, but it is also about how you use that sensor: my experience with the R5 is that, unless I use a tripod, I need to shoot at at least 1/(4 * fl) shutter speed to see good pixel-level sharpness, because higher resolution means less tolerance to micro vibrations.
