Canon EOS R Series Cameras

justa1972 said:
Hello

I’m on the hunt for a new camera, went to LCE today and was surprised to find that my favourite handling camera was the R8. However, I’m aware that a used R6 would be a similar price - what’s the better camera ? I take landscape and travel photos, rarely anything that moves !

Weight is important to me - main lens would be the 15-30…..

Thanks
Click to expand...
Exactly as above, the R8 has no IBIS, I can’t see any reason to buy one over a used R6 for less money.

Just my view but the control layout on the R6 is better than the R8 and the R6ii too but that might just be my muscle memory.
 
Last edited:
addicknchips said:
Doesn’t the R8 have a better af than the original R6?
Click to expand...
I thought it was the same AF? Maybe tweaked, but it’s not as fast generally, so whether that ‘AF improvement’ means anything in reality I don’t know.
 
Phil V said:
I thought it was the same AF? Maybe tweaked, but it’s not as fast generally, so whether that ‘AF improvement’ means anything in reality I don’t know.
Click to expand...
I thought it inherited that sf system of the more recent bodies, making it excellent at af. But obviously lacks ibis, has smaller battery and generally less bells and whistles.
 
addicknchips said:
I thought it inherited that sf system of the more recent bodies, making it excellent at af. But obviously lacks ibis, has smaller battery and generally less bells and whistles.
Click to expand...
The smaller battery is what concerns me, it doesn’t matter if the AF is newer, you need power to focus bigger lenses.

As I learned when I surmised the AF on the M50 II (90d) was better than the M5 (80d), but apparently it’s not because of the smaller battery.

Either way, the AF on the R6 is like magic, and the only reason I’d upgrade from it would be to the mkiii for the pre capture.
 
Phil V said:
The smaller battery is what concerns me, it doesn’t matter if the AF is newer, you need power to focus bigger lenses.

As I learned when I surmised the AF on the M50 II (90d) was better than the M5 (80d), but apparently it’s not because of the smaller battery.

Either way, the AF on the R6 is like magic, and the only reason I’d upgrade from it would be to the mkiii for the pre capture.
Click to expand...
Battery life doesn’t concern me too much, I’d just take a spare with me.
I’m not a pro and my photography is pretty laidback so I certainly don’t take 100’s of photos a day or need the fastest AF although an improvement over the ZFC I had would be nice….

Main priorities for me are IQ, Size/weight, lens options and handling.

The 15-30 and 24-105 f4-7.1 would cover my requirements with the addition of a small, cheap prime lens maybe…
 
justa1972 said:
Battery life doesn’t concern me too much, I’d just take a spare with me.
I’m not a pro and my photography is pretty laidback so I certainly don’t take 100’s of photos a day or need the fastest AF although an improvement over the ZFC I had would be nice….

Main priorities for me are IQ, Size/weight, lens options and handling.

The 15-30 and 24-105 f4-7.1 would cover my requirements with the addition of a small, cheap prime lens maybe…
Click to expand...
I enjoyed owning the RP for a while. The R8 is a great upgrade in terms of performance. If you don’t need the battery, added card slot, ibis and build quality, it’s a great option. Super lightweight. The 35mm f1.8 balances well. The 16mm and 50mm primes are really small too
 
addicknchips said:
I enjoyed owning the RP for a while. The R8 is a great upgrade in terms of performance. If you don’t need the battery, added card slot, ibis and build quality, it’s a great option. Super lightweight. The 35mm f1.8 balances well. The 16mm and 50mm primes are really small too
Click to expand...
The light weight is a huge appeal - under 500g for a FF camera ?! The build quality seemed good to me especially compared to my ZFC which I never had issues with.

Of course if you were a pro it would concern me…
 
justa1972 said:
Battery life doesn’t concern me too much, I’d just take a spare with me.
I’m not a pro and my photography is pretty laidback so I certainly don’t take 100’s of photos a day or need the fastest AF although an improvement over the ZFC I had would be nice….

Main priorities for me are IQ, Size/weight, lens options and handling.

The 15-30 and 24-105 f4-7.1 would cover my requirements with the addition of a small, cheap prime lens maybe…
Click to expand...
It’s not about battery life, the smaller batteries don’t move large lenses as quickly as the bigger better batteries. For your use case that might not matter.

The R8 has higher resolution than the R6, however there’s no ibis, so in order to realise that theoretical IQ improvement you’ll need a tripod, so the marginally lower weight gets knocked out instantly.

Some would also argue that any IQ improvement would be wiped out by the 24-105 kit lens.
 
Phil V said:
It’s not about battery life, the smaller batteries don’t move large lenses as quickly as the bigger better batteries. For your use case that might not matter.

The R8 has higher resolution than the R6, however there’s no ibis, so in order to realise that theoretical IQ improvement you’ll need a tripod, so the marginally lower weight gets knocked out instantly.

Some would also argue that any IQ improvement would be wiped out by the 24-105 kit lens.
Click to expand...
Points taken but not sure they apply to me personally.

Weight and size are a priority so I won’t be using any large lenses. The lenses that I am looking at have OIS which should be good enough.

The 15-30 would be my main lens and this gets good reviews - the 24-105 doesn’t sound bad and it’s not like I need a fast lens taking travel and landscapes…

I suppose it’s good to have choices - I can get a new R8 from Hdew for £879 or a used R6 for around £900.

Appreciate your input though :)
 
justa1972 said:
Points taken but not sure they apply to me personally.

Weight and size are a priority so I won’t be using any large lenses. The lenses that I am looking at have OIS which should be good enough.

The 15-30 would be my main lens and this gets good reviews - the 24-105 doesn’t sound bad and it’s not like I need a fast lens taking travel and landscapes…

I suppose it’s good to have choices - I can get a new R8 from Hdew for £879 or a used R6 for around £900.

Appreciate your input though :)
Click to expand...
The new RF slower lenses aren’t bad by any stretch, but the slower 24-105 doesn’t only differ from its faster siblings due to the larger aperture. They’re superior in every way (and priced to suit).

I posted that response because you mentioned IQ being a priority. And I felt it fair point out that if IQ really is a priority, a good solid tripod and better resolving lens will make much more difference than the extra 4 mpix of the R8.
 
justa1972 said:
The light weight is a huge appeal - under 500g for a FF camera ?! The build quality seemed good to me especially compared to my ZFC which I never had issues with.

Of course if you were a pro it would concern me…
Click to expand...
Have shot with the RP for various paid jobs and personal stuff. With rf lenses and ef lenses adapted. Providing you can work with its limitations it just works very well. If i still shot canon i wouldnt hesitate to have the R8 in the bag.

3 is the magic number by Jonathan Howes, on Flickr

first training session by Jonathan Howes, on Flickr

5-1 by Jonathan Howes, on Flickr
 
addicknchips said:
Have shot with the RP for various paid jobs and personal stuff. With rf lenses and ef lenses adapted. Providing you can work with its limitations it just works very well. If i still shot canon i wouldnt hesitate to have the R8 in the bag.

3 is the magic number by Jonathan Howes, on Flickr

first training session by Jonathan Howes, on Flickr

5-1 by Jonathan Howes, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Thanks Jonathan that's helpful - I'm going to go for the R8, just need to decide on lenses - definitely going for the 15-30 though
 
Quick question here for you remote shooters. I've been using a pole a few times of late and normally actuate the camera with my pocketwizards - but I'd like to be able to use the canon camera connect app to check FOV and camera angle, but by the time I stick the pole up sorted my stuff out I'm met with a message which in essence says "press a button on the camera to connect" - i can't remember the exact message. Now, that is absolutely no use if its up a 3m pole and I've got to take the pole down to do this....

I've tried taking a shot with the pocketwizards but to no avail, its like you MUST press the shutter button before it will connect again - which is quite frustrating, as I don't want to have to do that every time I want to check the settings or the framing etc.

For me its a real massive limitation of the App - has anyone else encontered this? Basically if you stick it up the pole, check framing and settings on the app then go away and start shooting remotely with the pocket wizards, come back 10 minutes later it then asks you to press the camera again to connect.... I hope that explains it well enough.

Any thoughts on ways round this?
 
Simply turn the sleep timer up (or off) on the camera - I think it defaults to 30s or something equally ludicrous
 
Thanks both, I'll try that. I've not had the issue with batterys being an issue for what I need at least.
 
Another potential option is to tether the camera to your phone via the USB socket on the camera.
 
Along a similar line.. I'm considering getting a 3rd party intervalometer. Have always had the Canon TC80N3 but passed it on to my son when I changed to mirrorless. The setup via the R6ii menu is too fiddly tho, so . Recommendations welcome :)
 
hunnymonster said:
Another potential option is to tether the camera to your phone via the USB socket on the camera.
Click to expand...

Not possible as it will be high up a pole and I will be standing far away actuating the shutter with a pocketwizard!
 
Buck said:
I have one for sale in the classifieds at present ! A bargain at £8 !

Click to expand...
Thanks.. this is a clone of the TC80N3 which I loved on EOS, but then passed it on since my EOSR6ii cannot accept the 3-pin plug without an adapter (which I don't want). I'd have the same problem with your unit. There are plenty options around that do work, I'm just curious to hear if anybody here had found a particular unit to recommend.
 
Very much an itch; R5 Mark 1 or R6 Mark III.. or save for R5 Mark II!

Head says the R6 Mark IIII would be the best bet really/. had an R5 years ago, and it was good, only got rid to release some funds. Most recent R I've used it the R8 which was very good.. Just got some nice RF lens still, which even though I have the Micro 4/3 kit set up, I really want an R body !
 
stickytape said:
Very much an itch; R5 Mark 1 or R6 Mark III.. or save for R5 Mark II!

Head says the R6 Mark IIII would be the best bet really/. had an R5 years ago, and it was good, only got rid to release some funds. Most recent R I've used it the R8 which was very good.. Just got some nice RF lens still, which even though I have the Micro 4/3 kit set up, I really want an R body !
Click to expand...


Got my R5ii last September, not really had a chance to push it but yesterday, I did. One thing that struck was the cropability, not that I bought it for that but it is very noticeable. I always zoom in on a bird (in LR) before doing any processing, to see how sharp it is, that's the main criteria for me. I nailed a few for sharpness yesterday and when I zoomed in on them on my monitor, they held together better than anything I've ever seen before. I did find the R5ii can be a little noisy sometimes but that's upto me to put right by nailing exposure, it's not a camera fault.

Given the choice today, I'd still go R5ii but that's not to totally dismss the R6iii, that's a very, very capable camera.
 
Are there any other users of the RF45mm?

I bought one on a whim in HoChiMinh week before last, not much of a saving on UK grey import price, but being able to walk out of the shop with it was a treat.

I’ve probably only shot about 10 frames with it so far, and they’re not downloaded yet.
 
@Phil V No, I was thinking about it for a smaller travel setup with the R5, but opted for the RF50 1.8 instead, as I read there are AF issues with the older mirrorless bodies. I'm also keen to hear how it goes.
 
Last edited:
I've been loving the RF 85mm F1.4VCM, but still musing over getting the EF 135 for that bit more reach and still maintaining subject seperation - As ever the internet is a mine of conflicting information. A lot of it says the DoF of 135 at F2 is similar to the 70-200 at 200 F2.8, so as much as I would like the 135 I am wondering if i really need it. @Phil V can you convince me, or at least give an opinion.

Also given the performance of the R6 II on remote duty, i've just bought another one from Cotswold, given the price is at £1,169. Will retire the 7D II once it arrives (unless needed in a potentially perelous position!).
 
135mm have a nicer rendering and DOF is certainly thinner wide open. Canon EF is very good, but you may as well just get the very best and go for Sigma ART. P.S Zero distortion unlike the new fancy E mount f/1.4 monster!
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_S
A_S said:
I've been loving the RF 85mm F1.4VCM, but still musing over getting the EF 135 for that bit more reach and still maintaining subject seperation - As ever the internet is a mine of conflicting information. A lot of it says the DoF of 135 at F2 is similar to the 70-200 at 200 F2.8, so as much as I would like the 135 I am wondering if i really need it. @Phil V can you convince me, or at least give an opinion.

Also given the performance of the R6 II on remote duty, i've just bought another one from Cotswold, given the price is at £1,169. Will retire the 7D II once it arrives (unless needed in a potentially perelous position!).
Click to expand...
Depends what you need. In my experience, the 135 is more of an indoor option, typically when lighting conditions are poor, and space is limited or needs more subject separation. The 200 is more of an outdoor option, with more space, more light, and a farther background.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_S
TimHughes said:
Depends what you need. In my experience, the 135 is more of an indoor option, typically when lighting conditions are poor, and space is limited or needs more subject separation. The 200 is more of an outdoor option, with more space, more light, and a farther background.
Click to expand...

In essence I am looking for something with similar DoF to the 85mm but more discrete and less in your face as I’ve found with the 85 people tend to either look away or turn and smile when I am just trying to get candid stuff . Likely to be mostly outside.
 
A_S said:
In essence I am looking for something with similar DoF to the 85mm but more discrete and less in your face as I’ve found with the 85 people tend to either look away or turn and smile when I am just trying to get candid stuff . Likely to be mostly outside.
Click to expand...
in that case i would be taking the 70-200 2.8
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_S
After resisting RF lenses for years, apart from the RF 85 1.2 and RF 135 1.8, I have recently added several of the smaller RF options for upcoming assignments where I need a relatively “small” camera: RF 16 2.8, RF 28 2.8 (pancake, love it), RF 35 1.8 (less small) and RF 50 1.8. So far so good. IQ is definitely acceptable for small/web images, and the setup is much smaller and less conspicuous, which is the priority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top