Canon eos R vs R6

The R is terrible for action, due to 2 reasons, the AF doesn’t keep up and the EVF display is more of a slideshow and not real action as you try to track subjects.

As to ergonomics, the slide bar was a bad decision, thus why it will never see the light of day on any other canon body.

EYE AF was ok for most things, but not action.

No dual slots meant it wasn’t the greatest for paid gigs.

If you ignore these things or they don’t matter, then yes it is a good body. It isn’t however even close to the R6 or R5, those are more mature, feature rich, and capable bodies.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19335606
The R is terrible for action, due to 2 reasons, the AF doesn’t keep up and the EVF display is more of a slideshow and not real action as you try to track subjects.

If you replaced 'action' with 'sports and BIF', I'd agree with you. Semantics?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19335606
As to ergonomics, the slide bar was a bad decision, thus why it will never see the light of day on any other canon body.

So, don't use it? I loved it for reviewing images... And, on the topic of ergonomics, that tiny little EOS R body was a joy to hold for long sessions. Amazing what Canon packed into that little body.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19335606
EYE AF was ok for most things, but not action.

The eye AF is leaps and bounds better than any Canon camera before it... With the latest firmware, other than sports, if you can't keep an eye in focus, it's not the camera's fault.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19335606
No dual slots meant it wasn’t the greatest for paid gigs.

Two EOS R's paid for me to build a studio and pay my own salary. Other than weddings, there are workflows that allow redundancy with a single card slot. But, agreed, it's not the G.O.A.T. But, was a camera that price ever expected to be?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19335606
If you ignore these things or they don’t matter, then yes it is a good body. It isn’t however even close to the R6 or R5, those are more mature, feature rich, and capable bodies.

19 months later, with a price tag 50%+ and 100%+ higher respectively, I'd hope they're more mature...

Again, with the EOS R being around a thousand dollars less than an R6, anyone buying now really has to ask themselves if the incremental upgrades are worth that much to them.

I’m glad the R works for you. I’m glad they fit your economics as well.

It didn’t work for me and I know how to set up and use canon gear. In my case the R6 works much better and the cost difference was worth it. The only negative is resolution.

This is why I still have my 5d4, it is superior to the R for sports and I still have the resolution when it matters.

I found no real advantage in the R over the 5d4 except for portraits with eye AF, and the advantages of the EVF for some types of shooting, but I shoot action and sports more often, like pro and high school events and wildlife.

I have too much wrapped up in canon gear. I can’t afford to redo all my lighting and lenses, so yes all I can do is shuffle through canon bodies.

One more thing... we often hear that the R has the 5D4 sensor (and I have even said it on occasion based on just IQ from both cameras). According to Canon interviews, this isn't the case. I feel this is all academic at best though, the resulting files are very close to each other in the end.

https://photorumors.co​m …-frame-mirrorless-camera/

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19335716
.
One more thing... we often hear that the R has the 5D4 sensor .... according to Canon interviews, this isn't the case.
.

.
Many people incorrectly assume that if one camera has a sensor with the same physical size and exact same number of pixels, that it is the same sensor being used in each camera. . I know this is often not the case, and wonder why people jump to conclusion and say . "it has the same sensor as ..... " . without first doing some research and checking and re-checking and confirming facts. . This has been a pet peeve of mine for many years.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19335819
.
Many people incorrectly assume that if one camera has a sensor with the same physical size and exact same number of pixels, that it is the same sensor being used in each camera. . I know this is often not the case, and wonder why people jump to conclusion and say . "it has the same sensor as ..... " . without first doing some research and checking and re-checking and confirming facts. . This has been a pet peeve of mine for many years.

.

Well, they make too much of a couple of similar characteristics, and if pressed, they'll admit it, but then continue to argue about making too much of it.

Certainly, the two sensors were not literally the same part number...they'll admit that. But then go on to argue as though there were no dissimilarities.

It's like an auto manufacturer using the same engine block in both the most basic of its automobile model from 10 years ago and the model they sponsor in NASCAR this season. It might be the same block, but it ain't the same engine.

I think people often say "the sensors are the same" and could very well mean "they produce the nearly identical results". They just say it incorrectly, and I know I have done this myself. Doesn't bother me at all, because it is final results that matter, not the hardware differences/similariti​es that matter.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19335888
I think people often say "the sensors are the same" and could very well mean "they produce the nearly identical results". They just say it incorrectly, and I know I have done this myself. Doesn't bother me at all, because it is final results that matter, not the hardware differences/similariti​es that matter.

Very often people say that as part of an argument "they didn't spend any money on the sensor, so they should have spent money on x and y."

Tommydigi wrote in post #19335466
People keep referring to the R as an entry level body and that it was rushed and all. While it could use some improvements it’s very capable and petty outstanding for travel, landscapes, macro and portraits etc.. I would say the biggest short coming is fast moving subjects but it can still do pretty well. If I was buying today I’d probably get an R6 but for the money, the R is really good. Even when I do finally upgrade I doubt I’ll sell the R.

The problem being that we are comparing apples to avocados. The assumption is that everyone 'needs' fast AF, IBIS, great eye-tracking, etc., and if that's so, then then that's what I'd buy.

The R is an exceedingly capable camera, full stop. Using it within it's capabilities, you can get award-winning shots with it just as much as with any other camera. I get great wildlife shots with mine. If I worked for NatGeo or shot sports for poster-printing, I would invest in a camera made for that particular profession, because I'm being paid to use the best fitments for the job. As a hobbyist wildlifer, I don't need that extra expense. As a product photographer, I don't need those bells and whistles. If I shot weddings, then yes, I'd upgrade.

I don't get the sneering condescension for the R. I made a living with a Rebel XT when they came out, no complaints from the customers. I did the job with whatever they handed me in the studio, which, in all the corporations I worked for as a studio photographer, was usually the cheapest camera and lens they could buy. And some of that equipment was pretty gnarly, lol. Skills count. I turned out some pretty nice product and beauty shots with them.

When the camera puts too many limits on what you do, and another model has those capabilities, then of course, you upgrade. If you, or your boss, don't want to spring for the bigger/faster/better, then you work with what you have.

Horses for courses. Many people turn out great work with cameras that supposedly 'arent good enough'. They don't need ferraris, they need the everyday car that will get them to the job on time. And the camera that's appropriate for their needs. Do we look down at a great image just because they didn't 'use the right camera for the job'?

And while I'm grousing about the things the R supposedly got wrong, I LOVE the multifunction bar. I can change settings on the fly, especially in combination with the control ring. Anybody who doesn't use that bar is a sissy, in my opinion,

a) So another "if you don't like the R, you are a poor photographer" post, wonderful!

b) The R was indeed rushed to market, Canon interviews even alluded to this at its release.

c) The R doesn't do certain things very well, despite it being marketed by the public even as a 5D4 mirrorless.

d) I bought the R, used it for several months, sold it and got something else. However when I air my experiences, we get a reply like that?

e) As to the bar, Canon locked out several options from that bar, restricting you to a certain set of functions and what settings you could assign. If Canon hadn't been so restrictive in what you could use the bar for, it would have been better.

f) Sometimes it isn't always about just getting great results from the camera, it may be the nimbleness of the camera to get those results, or how consistently, or how much easier it makes it on the photographer to create those final results. Sure I could land some great action shots with the R, but it may have taken me 20 frames to get it, when something like the 5D4 or other mirrorless bodies on the market would have only taken about 5 frames.

g) Using a studio analogy to try to show how low end gear can get the job done in the hands of a "skilled" photographer is pretty darn silly. We all know that studio work isn't very taxing on a camera at all. You could use a mobile phone to take pictures of a couple in a JCPenney studio even, and get good results. That just isn't a good example at all to try to show how a "good" photographer could use any gear to get good portraits. Of course, how would I know with my Olan Mills experience in my far past? Brrr, gives me chills even today....

It is great the R works for you and what you shoot. It's a shame you think that those that found shortcomings with the R are just poor photographers. It's just a camera, it's not your child or spouse that we are talking about, so no reason to be so apologetic for Canon or the R. I don't see anyone have "sneering condescension" about the camera at all, but it seems some do have that toward other photographers.

I can’t figure out that bar. It’s super awkward for me. I haven’t touched it in ages.

Tommydigi wrote in post #19336530
I can’t figure out that bar. It’s super awkward for me. I haven’t touched it in ages.

I was able to customize the entire camera for my needs. However when I tried to set the bar to one of the listed functions, I couldn't then set the end buttons to things I wanted them to be. Canon tried to be "too smart" in this area. They should have simply allowed the 2 buttons and the slide to be set to any function, and let the photographer then figure out what 3 to put together.

That is what broke the bar for me, too much restriction on what it could be configured for.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19336528
a) So another "if you don't like the R, you are a poor photographer" post, wonderful!

b) The R was indeed rushed to market, Canon interviews even alluded to this at its release.

c) The R doesn't do certain things very well, despite it being marketed by the public even as a 5D4 mirrorless.

d) I bought the R, used it for several months, sold it and got something else. However when I air my experiences, we get a reply like that?

e) As to the bar, Canon locked out several options from that bar, restricting you to a certain set of functions and what settings you could assign. If Canon hadn't been so restrictive in what you could use the bar for, it would have been better.

f) Sometimes it isn't always about just getting great results from the camera, it may be the nimbleness of the camera to get those results, or how consistently, or how much easier it makes it on the photographer to create those final results. Sure I could land some great action shots with the R, but it may have taken me 20 frames to get it, when something like the 5D4 or other mirrorless bodies on the market would have only taken about 5 frames.

g) Using a studio analogy to try to show how low end gear can get the job done in the hands of a "skilled" photographer is pretty darn silly. We all know that studio work isn't very taxing on a camera at all. You could use a mobile phone to take pictures of a couple in a JCPenney studio even, and get good results. That just isn't a good example at all to try to show how a "good" photographer could use any gear to get good portraits. Of course, how would I know with my Olan Mills experience in my far past? Brrr, gives me chills even today....

It is great the R works for you and what you shoot. It's a shame you think that those that found shortcomings with the R are just poor photographers. It's just a camera, it's not your child or spouse that we are talking about, so no reason to be so apologetic for Canon or the R. I don't see anyone have "sneering condescension" about the camera at all, but it seems some do have that toward other photographers.

The thing is, I agree with everything you said here, but you insist on making it about what is good for YOUR needs. And where on earth did I say 'if you don't like the R you are a poor photographer?


The fact - or not - that Canon 'rushed' the camera to market, doesn't affect the functionality one whit for the people who buy it. I'm sure if they find it lacking, they will move on to another model. It works perfectly well for all of my needs. I'm certainly not apologetic about the R - I love it and I love showing people what I can can do with it. I love the multifunction bar that you insist is 'crippled'. I actually hated the supposedly beloved joystick that many dslr owners apparently loved. Which also had much less functionality than the R bar. So I consider that I too have a valid viewpoint for those people weighing up the R models.

I just want people to see another viewpoint for the camera. It doesn't work for you, and that's fine. It works very well for me, and that should be just fine as well. It's perfectly valid for you to point out where the camera doesn't work for you.

I'm sorry to say, every time someone mentions the R, you trot out a list of why it's not a good camera in your opinion. You use words like 'rushed' and 'crippled' as if the functionality comparative to other similarly-priced cameras is ruined. It is not.

Certainly for someone who asks for opinions, it's worth hearing from someone who has experience with that model, but I also have experience with it, and it should be possible to hear from my viewpoint as well. I try to be honest and point out the shortcomings if I see there are things that they may not want to deal with in that camera, especially if they're very serious about a particular point like BIF.

The R is cheaper by far than the r5 and r6 and even the 5DMKIV - so of course it doesn't have the bells and whistles. It's up to the user to decide what they need. But insisting it's a 'rushed and crippled' model is not giving people a fair overview of what the camera can do for them.

I certainly never disparaged anyone using a better camera than I have, and I would jump at the chance to play with any of the top-line models out there. I also enjoy seeing all the different ways people can apply the extended abilities of the newer, faster, better yada yada models. Doesn't make me like my R or my old dslr's less. And it's still perfect for my needs.


As for studio use, I stand by my words. I'm sorry you don't consider studio product shooting to be a test of a "skilled" photographer's skills. I don't know what Olan Mills is - I'm Canadian) but I do know I have shot product for many large Canadian and American suppliers, in fact, many people will have seen my work in catalogues, calendars and many other commercial products in Canada and the US without knowing it. If a requirement was to shoot with an Iphone I would do that and yes, get a good shot.

Because it's the skill of the photographer that counts, and that skill isn't limited to just camera settings or model, whether in a studio with a mundane commercial product or elsewhere. Try shooting flatware with no reflections or glass-fronted clocks or clear glass anything without knowing how to set it up for minimal editing, catalogue ready. It may not tax the camera, but it will tax your expertise in photography and lighting, as well as other problem-solving capabilities. So why would I need an r5 for that?

That goes for wildlife shooting as well. Sneaking up on a bird and being clever enough to catch that bird in perfect flight position is a skill - one I don't really have, I suspect even if I had the fabled r6 I'd miss a lot of shots. Because I don't have the time nor the interest in spending hours, days and weeks of my life practicing that particular skill. But that's ok, because I'm still enjoying the camera, and I don't want to have to plough through a hundred similar shots for that one image that I might post somewhere and then forget. Even with the R, I get enough similar shots that it is still a pain to deal with. For those that want to do that, all good.

greyswan wrote in post #19336808
The thing is, I agree with everything you said here, but you insist on making it about what is good for YOUR needs. And where on earth did I say 'if you don't like the R you are a poor photographer?


The fact - or not - that Canon 'rushed' the camera to market, doesn't affect the functionality one whit for the people who buy it. I'm sure if they find it lacking, they will move on to another model. It works perfectly well for all of my needs. I'm certainly not apologetic about the R - I love it and I love showing people what I can can do with it. I love the multifunction bar that you insist is 'crippled'. I actually hated the supposedly beloved joystick that many dslr owners apparently loved. Which also had much less functionality than the R bar. So I consider that I too have a valid viewpoint for those people weighing up the R models.

Very Well Said - The "R" is enough camera for me and I find it's capabilities outstanding.

Lou