-= Canon EOS R6 Mark II owners unite! Post photos and discuss.

How about a little sequence, made up of a burst of images, taken of a Cormorant taking off.
EDIT: You might have to change resolution yourself. I don't know how to set it to the maximum resolution by default on YouTube.

Here's a shot of the same Cormorant, shortly before flying away. Taken with the RF 800/11. It would have been better if the bird had faced the camera, but a shot like this at ISO 3200 – as thick clouds had rolled in and it was getting rather dark – I call that an excellent result. It is a jpeg almost SOOC though. I processed it a little bit, cropped it a bit, but it's a jpeg so not too much can be done. However, very pleased with the results from this camera.

jptsr1 wrote in post #19518973
There isn't much I don't like about the R6 really except that is isn't as much fun. I'm not a pro, photography is definitely just a hobby but I love taking pictures. When I switched over to mirrorless (starting with the A7III) I think taking pictures became less enjoyable for me. I thought it was the fact that I switched to Sony but now I think it was the switch to mirrorless that did it. With mirrorless cameras I don't feel like I'm doing anything. It's like taking pictures with an iPhone. It's weird because it's kind of like how my Dad used to talk about digital.

I see. And I understand. I still think my best ever camera was the 1DIIN. Maybe even because I had to work very hard to get good results.

edmidlifecrisis wrote in post #19519206
I't very subjective but I really like the R6II files a lot. I also like the R5 files a lot. It's interesting but I came to mirrorless from a 5DIV and a 6D (version 1) as well as a 7DII. Despite its focusing limitations, I thought that the 6D files were gorgeous. They just had a special something, especially the colorful birds I usually photograph. But people too, I used it a lot for live music.


The R6II is the same way. A subjective (completely) assessment but I like the files a lot.

That said I did a photo shoot yesterday of my wife and her band(in my makeshift den/studio) and I used the R5 and the files are beautiful. I only used the R5 because I couldn't get the R6II to sync with my speedlites!!! Next time I'll use it once I figure out which setting is wrong.....

Funny thing is I can't really judge the files yet as my usual apps (Bridge and Lightroom) can't access the files. Neither can DPP. Also can't update Adobe's DNG Converter. So I am looking at the raw files in apps I'm not familiar with and that is rather weird. So I'm shooting both raw and jpeg now and my observations are about the jpegs SOOC. And they look really nice. Yes, they are not processed the way that I would but still, they have a nicer look about them than jpegs from the R6.

I am working on tweaking my old system. But if all fails I will have no choice but to purchase a new Mac.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19519527
I see. And I understand. I still think my best ever camera was the 1DIIN. Maybe even because I had to work very hard to get good results.

Funny thing is I can't really judge the files yet as my usual apps (Bridge and Lightroom) can't access the files. Neither can DPP. Also can't update Adobe's DNG Converter. So I am looking at the raw files in apps I'm not familiar with and that is rather weird. So I'm shooting both raw and jpeg now and my observations are about the jpegs SOOC. And they look really nice. Yes, they are not processed the way that I would but still, they have a nicer look about them than jpegs from the R6.

I am working on tweaking my old system. But if all fails I will have no choice but to purchase a new Mac.

Canon support for their new cameras is usually pretty good. Do you have the latest version of DPP because it should run the files. Mine did when I first got it before Adobe upgraded their software.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19519527
I see. And I understand. I still think my best ever camera was the 1DIIN. Maybe even because I had to work very hard to get good results.

Funny thing is I can't really judge the files yet as my usual apps (Bridge and Lightroom) can't access the files. Neither can DPP. Also can't update Adobe's DNG Converter. So I am looking at the raw files in apps I'm not familiar with and that is rather weird. So I'm shooting both raw and jpeg now and my observations are about the jpegs SOOC. And they look really nice. Yes, they are not processed the way that I would but still, they have a nicer look about them than jpegs from the R6.

I am working on tweaking my old system. But if all fails I will have no choice but to purchase a new Mac.

I use Darktable, the Linux equivalent of Lightroom, and GIMP as the pixel editor (not very often, since Darktable has expanded its utility (just like LR has)).

Darktable has a version for MAC. I understand that you 'd have to learn a new program, but it handles .CR3 files without the need of another program to convert to DNG. It is also free... like most of the Linux family programs

Drop me a PM if you are interested and I'll help all I can.

edmidlifecrisis wrote in post #19519618
Canon support for their new cameras is usually pretty good. Do you have the latest version of DPP because it should run the files. Mine did when I first got it before Adobe upgraded their software.

Ed, my Mac is too old. I can’t update DPP and I can’t update Adobe’s DNG converter as my Mac doesn’t meet system requirements for the updates I need.

MakisM1 wrote in post #19519881
I use Darktable, the Linux equivalent of Lightroom, and GIMP as the pixel editor (not very often, since Darktable has expanded its utility (just like LR has)).

Darktable has a version for MAC. I understand that you 'd have to learn a new program, but it handles .CR3 files without the need of another program to convert to DNG. It is also free... like most of the Linux family programs

Drop me a PM if you are interested and I'll help all I can.

That is so nice of you, Gerry. Thank you!

The thing is, I have Darktable. But I made the mistake of installing a new version on top of the old and that messed things up. The solution would be to remove everything from Darktable and do a new install. I think I will do that first.

However, I am at the moment also looking into other options, like well, basically hacking the system to enable installing Catalina. And I’m even looking into installing Windows 10 on an external drive, using Bootcamp. Imagine that, me seriously considering installing Windows!

In the mean time I am shooting raw+jpeg. It’s not perfect but at least I have something to work with.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19519899
Ed, my Mac is too old. I can’t update DPP and I can’t update Adobe’s DNG converter as my Mac doesn’t meet system requirements for the updates I need.

.

My computer is giving me trouble updating Topaz, so I feel your pain!!

We had some out of town visitors the last couple of days, here are a couple of snaps from our (obligatory) visit to NASA's Johnson Space Center. The photographic interest is the quality of the SOOC shot vs my post-processed photo for a high ISO shot:

I love my R6 mk II but still mostly shoot birds with my R7 for the bit of extra reach at the ponds I have to go to. But for everything else I like the R6ii.

My wife asked what I want for my 70th birthday and was thinking of the 24-240 (no way she would go for the 100-500 and my 100-400ii still is pretty good). I have the RF 24-105 the "kit" lens and I like it and have the 100-400 but for a single walkabout lens the 24-240 sounds pretty good. Also not having to change lenses.

What would you do? By you I mean any of you with the R6ii

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19521633
I love my R6 mk II but still mostly shoot birds with my R7 for the bit of extra reach at the ponds I have to go to. But for everything else I like the R6ii.

My wife asked what I want for my 70th birthday and was thinking of the 24-240 (no way she would go for the 100-500 and my 100-400ii still is pretty good). I have the RF 24-105 the "kit" lens and I like it and have the 100-400 but for a single walkabout lens the 24-240 sounds pretty good. Also not having to change lenses.

What would you do? By you I mean any of you with the R6ii

For the time being, I cover the 24-400 range with EF lenses and extenders that I already have (EF24-70L f2.8 vII, EF 70-200L f2.8 vII and a 2x extender). As I am fast approaching 70 in a matter of months, I question this aproach which entails considerable weight vs a superzoom.

I have the EFS18-200, my copy is a remarkably good one, very sharp, but has some chromatic aberration. The major drawback is that the R6II becomes a 10 MP camera in the crop mode. I did a few shots during the Houston Art Car week and they were ok, not stellar.

However, since then I have concluded that jpgs SOOC are about as good as I can post-process from the RAW. This simplifies things and an added bonus is that the R6II takes out chromatic aberration

I talked a lot about CA... This is because the RF24-240 has it and is WORSE than the EFS 18-200 as you can see below:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

So, at least for me is a question whether I stay with the 'free' EFS18-200 and take the low MP penalty, or pay the $800 and get the RF28-240 and use the 'good' lenses only for special projects.

Haven't made up my mind yet...

I have the 24-240. Honestly I don't use it that much because it's easy to switch lenses and, in retrospect, having a single light weight set up is not that important to me. Have you considered the 70-200 instead?

I think it depends on just how important the single light weight set up is to you.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19521633
I love my R6 mk II but still mostly shoot birds with my R7 for the bit of extra reach at the ponds I have to go to. But for everything else I like the R6ii.

My wife asked what I want for my 70th birthday and was thinking of the 24-240 (no way she would go for the 100-500 and my 100-400ii still is pretty good). I have the RF 24-105 the "kit" lens and I like it and have the 100-400 but for a single walkabout lens the 24-240 sounds pretty good. Also not having to change lenses.

What would you do? By you I mean any of you with the R6ii

I have two R6 Mark II bodies. I'm almost 70 years old (August for me) and ditched my 1DX2 + 100-400 II because the combo was too heavy. I also carried a 5D4 with the EF 24-105L. It was also too heavy.

I went through an R5 and an R6, but the IQ just wasn't quite there compared to my 1DX2 shots. The R6II is there in IQ for me!

My lenses when I carry both of my R6II bodies, one has the RF 24-105 STM and the other has the RF 100-400 STM with or without the RF 1.4x extender.

With all that said, sometimes I just want to carry one body. I LOVE the 24-240 STM as my single body solution.

Here are some samples:

We should all start a club!! I'll be 70 in September. There are a lot of us on this thread. I still handhold my EF 300 2.8II with TC's but not as often!! I handhold the 100-500 all the time but it does get heavy after a while, especially since I now have a torn rotator cuff AGAIN (12 years post surgery). Ugh.

I had the 24-240 and sold it. I am now not sure that was a a great idea. It is a good compromise. I have the 24-105L but just bought the 24-105 STM to take on a big trip.

BTW LJ3Jim those are great photos!!!

Some shots from a recent trip to Legoland California. I really like the R6 Mark II's sensor.

San Diego

edmidlifecrisis wrote in post #19521736
We should all start a club!! I'll be 70 in September. There are a lot of us on this thread. I still handhold my EF 300 2.8II with TC's but not as often!! I handhold the 100-500 all the time but it does get heavy after a while, especially since I now have a torn rotator cuff AGAIN (12 years post surgery). Ugh.

I had the 24-240 and sold it. I am now not sure that was a a great idea. It is a good compromise. I have the 24-105L but just bought the 24-105 STM to take on a big trip.

BTW LJ3Jim those are great photos!!!

I will sign up for the club - 70 in November! I have the RF 24-105 F4 L, but since I bought the RF 100-500 I have been carrying that around. I love the lens, and it doesn't seem all that heavy, especially without the lens foot attached. Never thought I could get sharp pictures at 500 mm handheld!