Canon eos R vs R6

I agree with you about Spot AF in the R vs DSLRs, much larger "spot"

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19315035
- AF system is inferior for sports/action
- Single card
- Spot AF is inferior to the spot AF of the 5D4
- Video is a bit better on the 5D4
- Lower battery life
- Few other nitpicky things

However, you would expect this with its $1200 lower price tag than the 5D4.

I agree with all of those points (especially the AF, low burst speed, etc). But I don't understand comparing a body that's $1200.00 less than the 5D4 - It isn't in the same class as the 5D4, nor, I think, was it ever meant to be, so those comparisons are kind of redundant to me. I bought it precisely because I couldn't afford the 5d4 or the r5. It is what it is, but still a very capable camera, even more so for the people who aren't into shooting extreme wildlife or sports. I think we should be comparing apples to apples.

Battery is not too bad really - I get around 500 full-rez RAW images on one charge. And I usually change over when it's down by around three-quarters.

greyswan wrote in post #19315655
I agree with all of those points (especially the AF, low burst speed, etc). But I don't understand comparing a body that's $1200.00 less than the 5D4 - It isn't in the same class as the 5D4, nor, I think, was it ever meant to be, so those comparisons are kind of redundant to me. I bought it precisely because I couldn't afford the 5d4 or the r5. It is what it is, but still a very capable camera, even more so for the people who aren't into shooting extreme wildlife or sports. I think we should be comparing apples to apples.

Battery is not too bad really - I get around 500 full-rez RAW images on one charge. And I usually change over when it's down by around three-quarters.

Someone suggested that the R should have been called the R5. I replied that it didn't have the AF performance or price tag to be considered a 5 series. TeamSpeed added some reasons why it's not a 5 series. That doesn't make the R a bad camera. It's a good camera as long as you don't expect it to match 5 series performance. If I didn't shoot any sports, I may have traded my 5D3 for one. I didn't want to take a step backwards though. I held out for the R5, then wound up with an R6 which has all of the R5 features I needed at a much lower price.

I was wanting full frame and was considering the 5DIV but then the R6 was announced and since I mostly do sports, that seemed more interesting to me and a little less money

greyswan wrote in post #19315655
I agree with all of those points (especially the AF, low burst speed, etc). But I don't understand comparing a body that's $1200.00 less than the 5D4 - It isn't in the same class as the 5D4, nor, I think, was it ever meant to be, so those comparisons are kind of redundant to me. I bought it precisely because I couldn't afford the 5d4 or the r5. It is what it is, but still a very capable camera, even more so for the people who aren't into shooting extreme wildlife or sports. I think we should be comparing apples to apples.

Battery is not too bad really - I get around 500 full-rez RAW images on one charge. And I usually change over when it's down by around three-quarters.

I am not comparing them in a positive light, the comment was that the R was Canon's mirrorless 5D4 replacement and thus the R should have been called the R5 and the R5 should be the MKII version. I disagree wholeheartedly to multiple points, the R vs the 5D4 and the R vs the R5.

The R is what it was, and it will be no more, it was a stop gap offering in the mirrorless space to introduce Canon's move to mirrorless and to introduce us to RF lenses. It isn't in the same league as the R5/R6, nor the 5D4 in some regards.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19315704
I am not comparing them in a positive light, the comment was that the R was Canon's mirrorless 5D4 replacement and thus the R should have been called the R5 and the R5 should be the MKII version. I disagree wholeheartedly to multiple points, the R vs the 5D4 and the R vs the R5.

The R is what it was, and it will be no more, it was a stop gap offering in the mirrorless space to introduce Canon's move to mirrorless and to introduce us to RF lenses. It isn't in the same league as the R5/R6, nor the 5D4 in some regards.

I didn't see any comment comparing it to the 5D4 - I was agreeing with you about the R. Just suggesting that it shouldn't be compared to the 5D4, which is really a different class of camera generally used for a different purpose. Horses for courses, the R is very capable, but all standards for camera models depend on the needs for the subject matter being shot. If I were a professional wildlife photographer for NatGeo, or a wedding shooter then I would go with the 5D4 or better, but for product and event photography, which is what I need it for, it's perfect. Not everyone needs - or wants - a Ferrari.

Agreed, the R shouldn't be compared to the 5D4, but yet that comparison was made. We were all just pointing out why the R shouldn't be compared, and doesn't stack up to the 5D4.

And it really cannot be compared to the R6, especially due to the difference in performance of the AF of the R6.

The R6 is a more mature camera. The body and experience shooting with the R6 is a completely different ballgame compared to R. my main concern with the R6 is that it maybe has some less details than the R but it has some superior AF, and a Animal AF

The R6 captures great images. Not sure what you shoot but even at 20 MP, the images are really nice.

duckster wrote in post #19334884
The R6 captures great images. Not sure what you shoot but even at 20 MP, the images are really nice.

They did a great job with the R6 sensor. The images are crisp and detailed despite having "only" 20 MP.

Maybe it has the same image processing as the 1DX3. I remember Canon marketing highlighted the superior image quality of the 1DX3 due to new image enhancement algorithms.

^^^^Yep, I believe the sensor in the R6 is the same one used in the iDX3.

Lou

lowrider wrote in post #19334972
^^^^Yep, I believe the sensor in the R6 is the same one used in the iDX3.

Lou

The sensor itself could be the same, but the AA filter is completely different.

In the last 5 years, I've made a living with the 5D3, 5D4, 1DXii, R, and R5

For most cases, the EOS R is far superior to the DSLRs.

Canon has done a fantastic job segregating their market with the R6, R, and R5.

The R6 has a few more bells and whistles, but you're paying a lot for those. Do you need AF that's only better in some instances (sports/BIF)? Because the R5/R6 AF is not leaps and bounds ahead of the EOS R in the use cases most people are shooting in. The eye AF in the R is solid. I make a living shooting thin DOF portraits and I never once questioned my AF in the 20 months I used my two EOS R bodies.

At this point the EOS R is about half the price of the R6. Canon wants you to pay a serious premium for the 'upgrade' to the R6. Anyone thinking about the R5, or R6, over the EOS R should really question if the fractional upgrades are worth the cost. For some, yes, for others, definitely not. You can buy some very nice glass for the cost of the upgrade.

The sensor in the EOS R and 5D4 is really phenomenal. Other than resolution, there's not much difference compared with the R5. And when you compare the resolution, side by side, I think most people would be shocked at how small the real world difference is.

The R6, EOS R, and R5 are all spectacular cameras. The AF and IQ are so good on all of them, you don't need to worry about that stopping you from getting the shot you want.

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.