Canon EOS R Series Cameras

Harlequin565 said:
It is difficult... Ultimately, I only shoot digital when other people want the photos. Be that work stuff, and documentary stuff for friends (events & suchlike). My X-T2 has done 1 wedding, a couple of portrait sessions, and 1 garden party in the last year and so it hardly gets significant use. Being able to use the same lenses I already have for my film Canons (EOS-1v, EOS30 and the brilliant little EOS300v) as well as adapt some of the manual lenses would mean not having to buy any more glass. The only "hole" would be for portraits, as my film portraits are on medium format.

I did look at the R6 and without looking at any prices, it definitely seems to be the camera I'd buy without a budget concern. Wex are currently offering me the best p/x deal for my stuff and they don't have any 2nd hand ones kicking about. Ultimately though, it would be an expensive camera to just sit around and not really use that much. I'd also really like to pick up a nice portrait lens at the same time to cover the gap (85, 135 or a 70-200).

The budget is £2k for a camera with both EF-RF and LeicaM-RF which shaves £200 off that. At £1200 second hand that leaves me a little extra for the lens.

That said....



If the EOS R isn't going to be a significant upgrade over the X-T2 (and by upgrade, I really mean AF responsiveness & accuracy) I may hold off, or even consider waving goodbye to my Canon FD mount gear to fund it. Is the step from R to R6 worth the extra £1k (or thereabouts) in terms of AF and low light (my two top requirements)?
Click to expand...
I have the RP and it's a great camera. Ok so not as fancy as the R/R6/R5, but plenty for me and it's smaller and lighter to carry.
Having used EF lenses on an adaptor for the best part of the year, yes they work fine, but ultimately you'll want the RF version because it's hassle moving the adapter from lens to lens, it adds another mount/join thus is weaker and another point for weather to get in (particularly if you are using older EF glass that maybe doesn't have such good weather sealing).
My go to lens is the EF24-105L, but I'm going to replace that with the RF version because it means not needing the adapter and the package being smaller to carry/pack and the IQ is going to be better than a 10yr old lens.

In terms of portrait lenses, you can't go wrong with the RF 50 1.8, it's a great little lens and at £200 is a bargain.
The RF 85mm f2 is also very good and can be picked up for about £500. Or you could just pick up an EF 85mm f1.8 for £200 which is a great lens.
I'd hold off on a 135mm for the moment. Canon are due to announce the new RF 135mm lens, when that happens, I think lots of people will be selling their EF 135mm f2L.
Which lens to buy also depends on whether you want to keep fully EF so they work with your EOS film cameras.

One other thing, I've had issues trying to use manual M42 and OM lenses on my RP when using an EF adapter ring with a chip to mount the M42/OM lens to the EF-RF adapter. In theory it should work just as it did on an EF DSLR but it doesn't, the camera refuses to take the shot even when set to release shutter without a lens. I think the chip in the adapter ring confuses it and it just doesn't like it. I need to try a simple M42-RF adapter next but I've not been that bothered about it.
That said one big advantage with the R series is the focus peaking when in manual focus, it definitely makes life easier.

Don't forget you can also use the Canon Test Drive service to test out the R series cameras and RF lenses for free before you buy. I've had RF 15-35mm over Christmas which has been fun.
 
ABTog said:
Having used EF lenses on an adaptor for the best part of the year, yes they work fine, but ultimately you'll want the RF version because it's hassle moving the adapter from lens to lens
Click to expand...
Thanks for the comprehensive reply and the Test Drive thing. Sounds like a win-win - especially as I can test an R6 and an R. I have no intention to buy any RF lenses (today lol) as they would just gather dust until I rarely used them. At least the EF lenses get a solid workout. And they're pretty decent too. The 40mm f/2.8, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and the 28mm f/2.8 - all quite modern and perform brilliantly on film.

I'm guessing I can just leave the EF adapter on the camera in that case? No need to move it from lens to lens, or am I missing something?

Also will hold off on the 135 as per your advice. No massive rush. The Sigma is great for head & shoulder portraits - even 3/4 if space permits...
 
robinsslee said:
You can leave the adapter fixed on the camera body whilst changing the lens (y)
Click to expand...
If you're using purely EF glass yes, but when using a mix of EF and RF lenses, the adapter comes off and then is inevitably on the wrong lens when you next want to put an EF lens on the camera. The other issue is the length the adapter adds to the lens when it's off the camera in my bag, means it's a much tighter fit.
Then there's the weight. The EF 24-105 F4 L (Mk1, which I have) is 670g, plus the adapter at 110g means the combo is 780g. The RF version is 700g. It may not sound like much but it all adds up when it's in a backpack and you're walking miles.
Weight was a key issue when I decided to get the RP, it's so much lighter than most other equivalents. The 6D and EF24-105L weighs 1440g, the RP and RF24-105L is 1185g. Even the Sony A7 III with the 24-105G is 1313g.
Weight may not be such an issue if you're shooting portraits in an indoor setting and use lighter weight primes.
 
ABTog said:
If you're using purely EF glass yes, but when using a mix of EF and RF lenses, the adapter comes off and then is inevitably on the wrong lens when you next want to put an EF lens on the camera. The other issue is the length the adapter adds to the lens when it's off the camera in my bag, means it's a much tighter fit.
Then there's the weight. The EF 24-105 F4 L (Mk1, which I have) is 670g, plus the adapter at 110g means the combo is 780g. The RF version is 700g. It may not sound like much but it all adds up when it's in a backpack and you're walking miles.
Weight was a key issue when I decided to get the RP, it's so much lighter than most other equivalents. The 6D and EF24-105L weighs 1440g, the RP and RF24-105L is 1185g. Even the Sony A7 III with the 24-105G is 1313g.
Weight may not be such an issue if you're shooting portraits in an indoor setting and use lighter weight primes.
Click to expand...
Well then it's another step to do or if you found annoying just replace them all with RF lenses. Unless you love changing lenses every 5 mins between RF and EF lenses, then I found that to be a bit annoying too.

110grams isn't much, I took my 500mm up the Cairngorms with 24-70mm 2.8 (y)

Sounds like Sony would serve better for you in terms of grams :)
 
Does anyone use their canon R6 with a screw on IR filter? I can’t find much information on the R6 regarding IR photography. I’m tempted to pick up a Kase magnetic IR filter as I already use the polariser and ND filters and would like to try IR photography again. I’m just trying to workout if the kit I already have is suitable for IR. So far I’ve found the 24-105 f4 RF is supposed to be a poor performer which isn’t a great start.
 
robinsslee said:
You can leave the adapter fixed on the camera body whilst changing the lens (y)
Click to expand...
I remember reading that you should attach the adapter to the lens before attaching it to the camera, and I have always done this since.

I use two adapters, and have them attached to the lenses in my bag ready (or on lens on camera). I found this works well except for if you want to use an extender. So, I have now bought the RF 100-500 for the extra reach and because I got fed up fiddling around with taking the EF extender on and off the 100-400.
 
Bebop said:
I remember reading that you should attach the adapter to the lens before attaching it to the camera, and I have always done this since.

I use two adapters, and have them attached to the lenses in my bag ready (or on lens on camera). I found this works well except for if you want to use an extender. So, I have now bought the RF 100-500 for the extra reach and because I got fed up fiddling around with taking the EF extender on and off the 100-400.
Click to expand...
I never do that when changing lens and it works fine on all occassions :)

I have 100-400mm II and it isn't cost effective for me to replace this with RF for the additional 100mm end gain.
 
Bebop said:
I remember reading that you should attach the adapter to the lens before attaching it to the camera, and I have always done this since.
Click to expand...

I've never done that and as long as the camera is off when changing lenses I fail to see what difference it could possibly make.
I have one adapter and various EF lenses and the Adapter is permanently attached to the camera.

I've thought about upgrading lenses but in all honesty it's a lot of money for not a lot of gain. I don't get a control ring but never had one so not missing anything, I don't need super fast focus being a landscape photographer and the EF lenses performed extremely well IMHO when shooting red kite and image quality improvement seems negligible.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
I've never done that and as long as the camera is off when changing lenses I fail to see what difference it could possibly make.
I have one adapter and various EF lenses and the Adapter is permanently attached to the camera.

I've thought about upgrading lenses but in all honesty it's a lot of money for not a lot of gain. I don't get a control ring but never had one so not missing anything, I don't need super fast focus being a landscape photographer and the EF lenses performed extremely well IMHO when shooting red kite and image quality improvement seems negligible.
Click to expand...
Me too I just leave the EF to RF adaptor on the camera agree about it’s not worth upgrading to RF lenses if you have them on EF mount already unless it’s a different focal length like a 100-500 to replace a 100-400
In my case the they don’t yet make an RF 300 2.8
 
ecoleman said:
I've never done that and as long as the camera is off when changing lenses I fail to see what difference it could possibly make.
I have one adapter and various EF lenses and the Adapter is permanently attached to the camera.

I've thought about upgrading lenses but in all honesty it's a lot of money for not a lot of gain. I don't get a control ring but never had one so not missing anything, I don't need super fast focus being a landscape photographer and the EF lenses performed extremely well IMHO when shooting red kite and image quality improvement seems negligible.
Click to expand...
Yes I find the EF lenses work perfectly well. I've no plans to change any of my other lenses. It was really using the extender that tipped me. I haven't noticed any degradation in image quality or focusing speed at all, and I like shooting action and wildlife.

I have one control ring adapter which I felt I needed when I had the R, but with the R5 I don't need the control ring.
 
robinsslee said:
Well then it's another step to do or if you found annoying just replace them all with RF lenses. Unless you love changing lenses every 5 mins between RF and EF lenses, then I found that to be a bit annoying too.

110grams isn't much, I took my 500mm up the Cairngorms with 24-70mm 2.8 (y)

Sounds like Sony would serve better for you in terms of grams :)
Click to expand...
As I said, the Sony A73 and 24-105G still weighs more than the RP and RF24-105L.
Each to their own when it comes to what you like to carry. And if you want to get a particular shot that requires a specific focal length, fair enough. But I'm not really a wildlife person, so I don't need the big whites, just a decent range of coverage.
I had the EF 100-400 mk2 and RF 600 f11 on loan from the Canon Test Drive and they were heavy, both to hold and carry. I walked perhaps 10 miles in two days with those to test them out and the 100-400 is too heavy for my liking. The RF 600 was much lighter and shrinks nicely for packing, but at f11, it's just too slow.
Next I think I'll try the new RF 100-400 f5.6-8 to see if that might replace my Tamron 70-300 VC.
I have a little more flexibility in my budget than when I first went full frame, but it's still a strict budget, so I'd rather put my money into the one lens I use for 60-70% of my shots, which is the 24-105L.
 
So the R5 I had for 2 weeks went back today. The short story is.. Not for me..

Just a reminder... I needed the camera for sport using ISO 51200 f2.8 and usually a 640 or better shutter on a 400mm lens and even then getting under exposed ... So maxing it out really.. my requirements where a 2000 pixel jpg file and to shoot in jpg.

Under the above conditions the same as I would use on a 1dxII I expected the ISO capabilities to be simmilar But the added MP resized down to 25% would make for much better pictures.. It didnt.. i found iso 51200 under the above? more blockey and thus the resulting resize not as good as expected..

The eye focus was great even in those conditions. very impressive. but limited use for sport with multiple subjects in close proximity and me wanting to choose one player over another.. No problem revert to spot

however the deal breaker was (again in extreme conditions using a 400) it took too long to aquire a subject..it was hunting if the target was too far from the last target it focused on... the hunting was only a second but thats a lifetime in sports and would lose me the shots.. my 1dx and 1dxII aquired faster

Now I know r5 users are going to argue the points.. But have you really shot moving subjects in exactly the same obove conditions? No point telling me to shoot raw either... the point was to shoot the same as I am now wiht better results...

I can imagine all the advantages in other situations.. especialy the ability to crop in more under better conditions and I do use the camera on the floor a lot so the flip screen great and lots more advantages.... But thats not why I wanted one... it was for the above :(
 
Jungli said:
Welcome to the R6... mines a month old.
Click to expand...
How are you finding it? It arrived late and I had stuff on in the eve so only had chance to charge the battery and put the update on it, feels quite different from the 5d3!
 
I've been out with my R5 a couple of times now and whilst a lot of it is intuitive, there is a lot still to get used to.

Predominantly Landscape for me so I love the touch screen and ease of focusing adjustments

I know I have lots to learn especially on the auto focus / eye tracking as this will not be used lots at present.

Super impressed with the image quality and the overall "feel" of the camera
 
Pete R said:
How are you finding it? It arrived late and I had stuff on in the eve so only had chance to charge the battery and put the update on it, feels quite different from the 5d3!
Click to expand...
It's great once you work out that the touch screen can also be used whilst looking through the viewfinder, use my thumb as a focus point mover, even with the eye tracking as I used to use the joystick to move the focus point around. This is so much better as you can get the head in and the eye tracker locks on.

Very pleased with it. Also splashed out on the f2.8 24-70 lens ... if the wifey finds out, I'll be taking a lot of hospital ward photographs.

:LOL:
 
KIPAX said:
So the R5 I had for 2 weeks went back today. The short story is.. Not for me..

Just a reminder... I needed the camera for sport using ISO 51200 f2.8 and usually a 640 or better shutter on a 400mm lens and even then getting under exposed ... So maxing it out really.. my requirements where a 2000 pixel jpg file and to shoot in jpg.

Under the above conditions the same as I would use on a 1dxII I expected the ISO capabilities to be simmilar But the added MP resized down to 25% would make for much better pictures.. It didnt.. i found iso 51200 under the above? more blockey and thus the resulting resize not as good as expected..

The eye focus was great even in those conditions. very impressive. but limited use for sport with multiple subjects in close proximity and me wanting to choose one player over another.. No problem revert to spot

however the deal breaker was (again in extreme conditions using a 400) it took too long to aquire a subject..it was hunting if the target was too far from the last target it focused on... the hunting was only a second but thats a lifetime in sports and would lose me the shots.. my 1dx and 1dxII aquired faster

Now I know r5 users are going to argue the points.. But have you really shot moving subjects in exactly the same obove conditions? No point telling me to shoot raw either... the point was to shoot the same as I am now wiht better results...

I can imagine all the advantages in other situations.. especialy the ability to crop in more under better conditions and I do use the camera on the floor a lot so the flip screen great and lots more advantages.... But thats not why I wanted one... it was for the above :(
Click to expand...
Makes complete sense to me. Maybe R3 or R1 will be better for you?
 
TimHughes said:
Makes complete sense to me. Maybe R3 or R1 will be better for you?
Click to expand...


I have to be honest I was looking for a cheaper way of upgrading the ISO capabilities... silly me :( I think I need to stick wiht what I have ...It works OK but ..well tha knows :)
 
Has anybody had experience with using the Sigma 135mm f/1,8 ART on the Canon R6 / R5? How's the AF performance in comparison to EF adapted lenses?
 
gilbouk said:
Has anybody had experience with using the Sigma 135mm f/1,8 ART on the Canon R6 / R5? How's the AF performance in comparison to EF adapted lenses?
Click to expand...
No…I’m using the canon 135 f2 EF with R5 and AF is perfect, better hit rate than with DSLRs, like 100% is possible. I don’t have any RF glass to compare and with this performance honestly don’t see the need.
 
Is anyone use a Canon R6 for boxing photography ?.I am using the 1DXii at the moment and was wondering if it would be a upgrade.I can't afford the MKiii at the moment.
 
Pick said:
Is anyone use a Canon R6 for boxing photography ?.I am using the 1DXii at the moment and was wondering if it would be a upgrade.I can't afford the MKiii at the moment.
Click to expand...
@KIPAX?

I’ve used the R5 for wrestling in good light and found the eye tracking very helpful. For boxing I’m poor light the 1DXM2 may have the edge with better results at high ISO.
 
jamiewednesday said:
Yes!
Click to expand...
Well, I bit the bullet and picked up an R6. Arrived on Friday.

After a couple of YouTube "how to set it up" videos, I've got it working in a way that means it ceases to become an obstacle.

Perfect ergonomics and whilst the intelligent AF (smiley face thingy) isn't stupid (WTF do you want to focus on that??) I am, so being able to customise it to switch between smiley face and centre point AF with a button is huge.

Image quality is great, even with what most would consider to be sub-par lenses. Usability is fine with EF, and less fine with adapted manual lenses (the gimmiky af pointers don't work, and the focus peaking isn't as good as the X-T2 was) but I can work around that with relative ease. So whilst I don't know what I've missed because I never tried it, thanks to those that recommended the R6.

Tom says hi... (obligatory cat photo with new camera)

Tamron 28-300, 1/400, ISO 4000, 300mm, photo is sharper because forum compression etc...
R6_I0049.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well, I've just got an R5 as an upgrade/in addition to the 5DIII.

After watching a few YouTube videos, I now have it set up with back button focus - the the AF-ON button for spot AF, and the * button for animal/human eye detect AF. It works really well using spot AF to initially focus on the subject, then eye detect to accurately track the subject. Also I configured the top right of the touch screen to use for moving the AF point for spot AF and it works surprisingly well when looking through the viewfinder (I never really got on with moving AF points around using the joystick control).

Also configured the M-Fn button near the shutter release to instantly switch between still and video modes. I don't normally shoot any video, but have been experimenting with some short clips of birds in the garden in between taking stills, and it is easy to do and works well.

Initial impressions are very positive - I was unsure how I'd get on with the EVF, but it's absolutely fine. The rear screen is also excellent and great that it can be oriented to make it easy to take photos with the camera very low down or above your head.

I intend to continue to use the EF lenses rather than switching to RF, as I'm very happy with the lenses I have, and also don't have the budget to change (which also means I can continue to use the 5DIII as a backup/second camera). Performance with the EF lenses is great from both an AF speed and quality point of view. Although I bought the control ring adapter, in practise it transpires that the control ring isn't really needed (there are enough controls on the camera), and to be honest, the location of the control ring very close to the camera body makes it quite hard to use comfortably.

As has been mentioned by @KIPAX, low light with very high ISO does have a fair amount of noise (still a significant improvement over the 5DIII), but I guess that's to be expected with cramming 45Mp into the full frame sensor size, and Topaz Denoise (another new purchase for me) seems to do a pretty good job of reducing this.

Overall I'm extremely happy with it. Now to go out and really get to know it with some extended use!

Some photos below (full res ones on linked FlickR).

Example at ISO25,600 with 24-105 f4L:

Barnaby_2 by conradsphotos, on Flickr


A couple of birds in the garden with Sigma 120-300 f2.8 + 1.4x:

4A4A0333 by conradsphotos, on Flickr

4A4A0366 by conradsphotos, on Flickr


And short (1080p) video clip:

4A4A0294 by conradsphotos, on Flickr
 
What do people think to a cheap second body to go with an EOS R with EF lenses? It''ll likely get abused with time-lapse sequences. Considerations then are cost, shutter actuations, battery life, type of battery, potentially weather sealing and compatibility with EF lens system.
Thoughts so far - EOS M (mirrorless so shutter actuations may be less an issue); 200D (Cheap, small but different battery); RP (Not cheap, different battery); older EOS body...need more thought on that one.
 
I have my trusty 5D MkII still as a back up but may also use it more for night photography in the future.

Unless you have lots of cash then something like the 200D would be good.

This way you can use an EF/RF adapter and use the EF lenses (I don’t believe you can use M lenses on R cameras and vice versa so that would mean two lots of lenses?)

Worth looking at the classifieds or even MPB for ones within budget.
 
CavGez said:
What do people think to a cheap second body to go with an EOS R with EF lenses? It''ll likely get abused with time-lapse sequences. Considerations then are cost, shutter actuations, battery life, type of battery, potentially weather sealing and compatibility with EF lens system.
Thoughts so far - EOS M (mirrorless so shutter actuations may be less an issue); 200D (Cheap, small but different battery); RP (Not cheap, different battery); older EOS body...need more thought on that one.
Click to expand...
Depends on how much damage is likely. 200D sounds like a good option. For time-lapses that may need a shutter release, not sure if the functionality is included in the camera body.
 
Thanks, yep, I'm steering towards a 200D, tethered power solution with a big external battery, intervalometer. All my lenses will work, even my older EF-S ones.
I'd better think about weatherproofing for this poor thing, it's going to have it's work cut out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top