The Canon EOS R system turns 3 and Lensrentals.com gives us a breakdown of its progression

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,178
883
Davidson, NC
As a 6D user I, I don’t find the R appealing. I do mostly landscapes, but would want a body with IBIS. An R5 is way too expensive, a great camera but for my use a Z7 would be a better value. In reality, I don’t make large prints, so an R6 should be excellent. But I refuse to use adapters and it would give similar results as a cheaper Z6 (orZ6II). So I will just continue to use what I have and hope the 6D lasts a long time. Not that I would not love to go to mirrorless, but, on a fixed income, and no matter what I do, it would be expensive. Not meant as a putdown to any of this mirrorless cameras or lenses (but zero interest in Sony). For now, I will just keep watch the market, see how things develop.
“That picture is really nice. I can tell that your camera didn’t have a mirror in it,“ said nobody ever.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: mpphoto and EricN

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
440
477
UK
As a 6D user I, I don’t find the R appealing. I do mostly landscapes, but would want a body with IBIS. An R5 is way too expensive, a great camera but for my use a Z7 would be a better value. In reality, I don’t make large prints, so an R6 should be excellent. But I refuse to use adapters and it would give similar results as a cheaper Z6 (orZ6II). So I will just continue to use what I have and hope the 6D lasts a long time. Not that I would not love to go to mirrorless, but, on a fixed income, and no matter what I do, it would be expensive.
Just a few observations that I hope are useful:

I’m an ex-6D user myself. I found it to be an excellent camera with only a few flaws - AF unable to lock onto subjects in poor light, insufficient DR and a tendency for the electronics to go completely haywire in humid conditions in the tropics.

I don’t think anyone actually *likes* using adaptors, as they add an extra interface with additional electrical connections and also introduce a small degree of play when used with heavy lenses. But having said that, I’ve found that using EF lenses on my R5 poses zero issues, and everything including animal-eye AF works extremely well.

Having used a multitude of DSLRs and MILCs from Olympus, Sony and Canon, I honestly think IBIS is overrated. With my R5 and EF glass, with IBIS turned off, I still get 2-3 stops of stabilisation from the OIS in the lenses. With IBIS turned on, it adds maybe one extra stop of stabilisation. Using the R5 with RF glass adds about another stop of stabilisation.

For landscape work, you really need as much DR as you can get, in order to capture highlight detail in clouds, and in order to be able to lift shadows without increasing noise or introducing banding. You say you have zero interest in Sony, but cameras such as the a7s, a7iii and a7Riv are ideal for landscape photography.

From an economic standpoint, it would make sense to keep your excellent EF glass, and get a 5DMkiv body, which is superior in every regard to the 6D. Switching to Nikon would be costly as you’d have to replace all your lenses as well as get the new body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SUNDOG04

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
659
369
Well, I already answered that that was exactly what I did - bought one RF lens and then bought only EF lenses after that.
Apologies, Czardoom, I misunderstood you as saying you "used only EF lenses after that" and I didn't realize these were lenses you were buying to use on the R, as opposed to lenses you already had on hand.
 

SUNDOG04

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Mar 1, 2015
120
81
Just a few observations that I hope are useful:

I’m an ex-6D user myself. I found it to be an excellent camera with only a few flaws - AF unable to lock onto subjects in poor light, insufficient DR and a tendency for the electronics to go completely haywire in humid conditions in the tropics.

I don’t think anyone actually *likes* using adaptors, as they add an extra interface with additional electrical connections and also introduce a small degree of play when used with heavy lenses. But having said that, I’ve found that using EF lenses on my R5 poses zero issues, and everything including animal-eye AF works extremely well.

Having used a multitude of DSLRs and MILCs from Olympus, Sony and Canon, I honestly think IBIS is overrated. With my R5 and EF glass, with IBIS turned off, I still get 2-3 stops of stabilisation from the OIS in the lenses. With IBIS turned on, it adds maybe one extra stop of stabilisation. Using the R5 with RF glass adds about another stop of stabilisation.

For landscape work, you really need as much DR as you can get, in order to capture highlight detail in clouds, and in order to be able to lift shadows without increasing noise or introducing banding. You say you have zero interest in Sony, but cameras such as the a7s, a7iii and a7Riv are ideal for landscape photography.

From an economic standpoint, it would make sense to keep your excellent EF glass, and get a 5DMkiv body, which is superior in every regard to the 6D. Switching to Nikon would be costly as you’d have to replace all your lenses as well as get the new body.
This is an excellent and very sensible post. It would be costly to switch and that would make it out of the question. I have three lenses with IS and love it and I agree that IBIS would not be all that necessary. I have thought of a 5DIV and and if I need a body quickly, that would possibly be the wisest and most economical quick fix. Thanks again for your excellent response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: entoman
Sep 29, 2021
2
1
Love the R system, how cool would it be if Canon released a program that allowed us to create our own camera systems I need something better than the R6 but not as overkill as the R5 :p
(I know obviously this is just fantasy, it would certainly not be in Canon's best interest)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SUNDOG04

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,055
4,618
I don’t think anyone actually *likes* using adaptors, as they add an extra interface with additional electrical connections and also introduce a small degree of play when used with heavy lenses.
I *really like* using an adapter that lets me drop in nice, small CPL and ND filters behind lenses like my TS-E 17 and 11-24, instead of the front filtering options for those lenses that are, respectively, salad plate- and dinner plate-sized.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
440
477
UK
I *really like* using an adapter that lets me drop in nice, small CPL and ND filters behind lenses like my TS-E 17 and 11-24, instead of the front filtering options for those lenses that are, respectively, salad plate- and dinner plate-sized.
With my current lenses I feel happier having a good quality protective filter on the front, but yes, that isn’t really an option for the 2 lenses you describe, so I can fully understand the value of an adaptor with a slot-in rear filter.

I’m not so sure of the value of the adaptor with the control ring though - it must feel a bit odd switching back and forth between adapted EF lenses with the control ring at the rear, and RF lenses with the control ring at the front. I’m sure there are some people who find the control ring adaptor useful, but on my RF lenses I’ve disabled the control ring as I find that there are more than enough customised dials and buttons already for my needs.

Currently I’m using a mix of adapted EF lenses and RF lenses, and I’m likely to continue using some of my EF lenses (e.g. 24mm TS-E, 100mm IS macro, 180mm macro) for several years. Potentially using adaptors can introduce a small amount of play, and increase opportunities for the ingress of moisture, although I haven’t experienced this myself. At one stage however I did have a 1.4x iii extender which introduced some disconcerting play/wobble when used with my 100-400mm Mkii and 300mm F2.8.
 

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
994
622
Colorado, USA
I don’t think anyone actually *likes* using adaptors, as they add an extra interface with additional electrical connections and also introduce a small degree of play when used with heavy lenses. But having said that, I’ve found that using EF lenses on my R5 poses zero issues, and everything including animal-eye AF works extremely well.

I would say "Some people don't like using adapters". And they are very vocal. I don't have any problem adapting EF lenses to my R or M series cameras when appropriate. I'm in no rush to replace all of my EF glass with RF glass, if ever.
 

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
994
622
Colorado, USA
This is an excellent and very sensible post. It would be costly to switch and that would make it out of the question. I have three lenses with IS and love it and I agree that IBIS would not be all that necessary. I have thought of a 5DIV and and if I need a body quickly, that would possibly be the wisest and most economical quick fix. Thanks again for your excellent response.

Also a former 6D user that moved to the 1DXII at introduction so I could shoot sports and BIF as well. Both of my 6Ds are still going strong as loaners. Given limited funds, I'd stick with the 6D as long as it was meeting my needs. When it breaks, you can decide your next step and save in the meantime. The 5DIV will be there and the R series will keep improving.

I find R6 is sufficient for my current needs (adapted EF and RF800/RF100-400/RF1.4x) so I'm not rushing off to get an R5 or R3. I can wait to see what other bodies are on the horizon. I will say that I much prefer the R6 to the 6D for my use, even with just EF glass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SUNDOG04