Canon 5d4 worthy upgrade from 6d in 2023?

As to who the M line was targeted for, many pros bought into the M line for personal use, web vlogging, etc. Again that matters little, there was and still is a very active M following and canon has multiple versions as they enhanced and improved the line. It isn’t like canon didn’t know what they were doing when they did the R and RP, they had a decade of experience already.

As to live view, it doesn’t matter how people had to hold the camera to use it, that doesn’t negate my comment that the low light issue causing grief in a sensor-to-lcd (or evf) had existed years in the DSLR line. So this isn’t a “kink” of mirrorless that has to be worked out.

Finally, there isn’t any other DSLR model than the 5d4 to move to that is better than the 6D, assuming IQ is paramount which is usually one of the primary reasons one looks to upgrade along with a host of other features you gain. Of course you may want to bring in the 1dx2/3. Even then from just an IQ perspective, it might be a wash, maybe the op is open to a 1D series?

Therefore yes the 5D4 is a worthy upgrade, if for no other reason that there’s not too much else to choose from regarding IQ. Ignore that it has more resolution, has more features, is built better, has dual slots, AF is better, and for many has better ergonomics. It is clearly one of the fan favorites in the canon DSLR space. If the OP is for a mirrorless option, then the R is the closest to the 5D4 for resolution and function, with a gen 1 eye AF system thrown in. I think it goes for about the same, maybe less. However I would like to some indication of the OP considering it, and at this point, it appears not.

I have all three, an M series, a 5D4, and an R6. I feel I am qualified to talk to these points simply due to experience and ownership. And I had an R and 6D. So I don’t have to live vicariously through others’ accords, or theory, and I don’t have some sort of emotional attachment to just one type of canon product, ie I can be objective.

Wilt, I remember back in the day on how you stated the 7D2 couldn't do what was touted of it for low light focusing. So you would theorize a bunch on it in your posts or used others' posts as backing. Then you bought one and was surprised that it could in tests you performed in your attic, if memory serves me correctly. If you haven't bought any mirrorless, it might be time for you to consider an "upgrade". Maybe you have already, and I don't know it, but to experience it in the M and R line up, it will make you appreciate certain things and really wish for others.

ߘ Sorry.
M5 was released in seventies as same mirrorless dated to thirties of previous century.

While Canon was twenty years late on any cameras back then and years late on new era mirrorless nowadays.

kf095 wrote in post #19480984
ߘ Sorry.
M5 was released in seventies as same mirrorless dated to thirties of previous century.

While Canon was twenty years late on any cameras back then and years late on new era mirrorless nowadays.

Yet that matters little to market share or the masses, which matters more than revisionist history.

Sony has the edge on Canon still by about 5% on the mirrorless global market. The ones in jeopardy at this point are Nikon and Fuji. That will leave Canon, Sony and Panasonic as the remaining heavyweights. So despite this purported "behind by years", seemingly that gap is almost non-existent.

joeseph wrote in post #19480916
Hmmmm... M5 was released nearly 8 years ago... I think the "mirrorless" and the "EVF" are two different technologies, not always together and not always seperate.

Have you ever used an M5 or M50 for still photography? I had an M50 for couple of months. The EVF lag and battery life made it unusable for stills.

I mentioned earlier that the highest praise I can give my 5Div is that it never gets in my way. The M50 was always in the way. Hardly the DSLR killer that the R series has become.

I guess they're fine for video -- I bought mine from a vlogger and sold it to a vlogger -- but that doesn't require a speed-of-light EVF, which I believe defines what's become known as mirrorless cameras now. You can argue with that name, I sure do, but that's what it means -- an ILC with a near-speed-of-light electronic viewfinder. There's a long history of digital cameras with no mirror or pentaprism to facilitate eye-level viewfinding, but that's not really what we're talking about.

drsilver wrote in post #19481057
Have you ever used an M5 or M50 for still photography? I had an M50 for couple of months. The EVF lag and battery life made it unusable for stills.

I mentioned earlier that the highest praise I can give my 5Div is that it never gets in my way. The M50 was always in the way. Hardly the DSLR killer that the R series has become.

I guess they're fine for video -- I bought mine from a vlogger and sold it to a vlogger -- but that doesn't require a speed-of-light EVF, which I believe defines what's become known as mirrorless cameras now. You can argue with that name, I sure do, but that's what it means -- an ILC with a near-speed-of-light electronic viewfinder. There's a long history of digital cameras with no mirror or pentaprism to facilitate eye-level viewfinding, but that's not really what we're talking about.

I have an M50 and shot sports, like rugby, with it and had no issues other than bursting and battery life. I have shot wildlife with it as well, and even with 1.4x and 2x added to the mix. Battery life is a mess, but put it into eco mode and close up the rear LCD, and you can eek out more life. Batteries are so cheap and small though, so that helps.

Is it the best tool, nope, but that again doesn't change anything about the fact that Canon has had mirrorless tech in place since the 40D or 50D with live view and focusing in that mode. The M series substituted the mirror and OVF for EVF and the M6II set the stage for the 90D and R7. What has changed since then is that the processors are many times more powerful and eye AF is much better. That is the point being made, not that the M series is a replacement for the 6D.

It really depends upon what you shoot and how you use your images.

If you do a lot of low light shooting, the 6D is one of the best cameras for that.

If you don't make large prints (or do heavy cropping), the higher resolution camera might make little difference.

If you shoot a lot of landscapes or architecture, a higher resolution camera might be ideal (although even higher, like the R5, might be even better). For this type of photography a high performance AF system isn't really needed, either, although the 5DIV has one of the better AF systems among DSLRs.

If you shoot sports the more advanced AF system of the 5DIV would be better than the 6D's AF system, but neither are the best for sports (1DXIII or mirrorless would be better)l.

If you only ever display your images digitally, at Internet sizes and resolutions, your 6D is likely more than enough camera.

Unless you need higher performance AF for action photography such as sports or wildlife, then an R6II or new R8 may be a better choice.

Your Canon EF lenses will adapt just fine onto any of the R-series mirrorless. Many people adapting them say the old lenses work better than ever on the mirrorless cameras. The basic Canon adapters aren't expensive... Plus there area a number of 3rd party made EF to RF adapters now, which can be a good value. For example, some reviewers claim the Meike adapter with the drop-in Variable ND filter works better than the Canon with drop-in Vari ND... and that Canon adapter will set you back $530 (adapter w/Vari ND + separately sold clear drop-in filter), while that Meike costs $160 (includes both the Vari ND and the clear drop-ins). Plus there are a number of other filters available for the Meike at reasonable cost. A CPL from Meike costs $80, while Canon's sells for $250.

It is questionable if 3rd party EF mount lenses will work properly when adapted for use on the R-series cameras. Many do, but some don't. In some cases the manufacturers have addressed the problem by updated the lens' firmware. So, for example, you should check with Tamron about your 24-70mm. Or perhaps some other people have adapted that particular lens and may be able to tell you if it's okay. You'd have to repeat the process for any other 3rd party lenses you currently use.

It would be a more future-proof update to move to the R-series cameras. The most obvious benefit of doing so is the high performance AF systems the newer cameras offer... able to do "tricks" no DSLR AF system ever could. But you also get other benefits such as newer sensors with better image quality, "automatic" lens calibration (because the AF sensors are embedded in the image sensor itself), better low light/high ISO performance both in image quality & ability to focus, faster frame rates, silent shooting, as well as helpful new viewfinder features. Of course there are some trade-offs, too... such as the cost of the newer cameras and their native lenses, fewer shots per battery charge, and a new AF system to learn to use well.

A 5DIV body only bought new is currently costing $2300. The closest mirrorless replacement in terms of features would be the R5, but it presently costs $3700 (on sale, reg. $3900).

However, seeing you're coming from a 20MP 6D, it would still be a significant upgrade for you to get an R6 Mark II (24MP), $2500 body-only. That gets you an AF system with even a few more advantages than the R5, and while not as big an increase as still would give you a 25% bump in resolution.

If your budget limits you to $1500, there still is the option of going mirrorless. The new R8 has essentially the same 24MP sensor as the R6II, although it cuts corners in a number of other ways.... and this new mirrorless R-series is priced at $1500. Compared to the R6II, the R8 doesn't have IBIS, has only a single memory card slot, doesn't have a mechanical shutter at all and has slower frame rate in 1st curtain electronic. The R8 in 1st curtain e-shutter also has slower top shutter speed. And it has an overall lower specification viewfinder. But it's $1000 less expensive than the R6II.

An interesting thought... the R7 is also $1500 (or $1900 with RF-S 18-150mm lens). Yes, it's an APS-C camera. But with a 32.5MP sensor it actually has higher resolution than the 5DIV, R6II and R8. That's both a plus and a minus. More is better, but it's also very demanding of lenses, intolerant of careless shooting technique and somewhat limited in high ISO capability. But it would be another way to get into mirrorless without breaking the bank. And there are some advantages to using an APS-C cameras, such as making telephoto lenses "more powerful" (or allowing smaller, lighter lenses to be substituted).

I just ran across this:

We Review the Canon 5D Mark IV in 2023: Still the Best Professional DSLR
https://fstoppers.com …-professional-dslr-626398

drsilver wrote in post #19487837
I just ran across this:

We Review the Canon 5D Mark IV in 2023: Still the Best Professional DSLR
https://fstoppers.com …-professional-dslr-626398

Title is very misleading... and doesn't match the opening statement.

But I agree, it even gives a couple of the 1DX models a run for their money in everything but burst rates. It is likely I will never sell my 5D4 and will keep it until it dies. I knew it was a special camera when I found that it replaced the 1D4 in all regards other than missing a few FPS in a burst.

I like how the author states, "best 5D camera they will ever make". Sort of the last 5D camera they are ever going to make.

Cbutterworth wrote in post #19480307
... Given that I have EOS lenses (Tamron SP 24-70; Canon EF 100mm macro; 70-300mm, etc.) I am concerned that an upgrade to the R5 will render my current lenses incompatible ...

If you are basing your decision on the false impression that EF lenses will not work with mirrorless bodies, then please reconsider your options. EF lenses work great with the EF-to-RF adapters and I've not sold a single EF lens since buying the R and R5 bodies several years ago. In fact, I have purchased a few MORE EF-S lenses since the EF-S will also work on mirrorless bodies using the adapter.

But if you're still considering the 5D4 over the R5, I can vouch for both and state that they are both great cameras. However, I have barely used my 5D4 since getting the R5.

I do not have any experience with the 6D line so I cannot say what the upgrade to either bodies will be from that standpoint.

I think the 5D MKIII deserves some mention too. What a great all around camera that was and still is.

Steven H Campbell wrote in post #19492039
I think the 5D MKIII deserves some mention too. What a great all around camera that was and still is.

The 6D has better ISO and DR than the 5D3, but the 5D3 is a better actions shooter, depends on the priority when looking at these two.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19492173
The 6D has better ISO and DR than the 5D3, but the 5D3 is a better actions shooter, depends on the priority when looking at these two.

I never had a 6D before, but going from the 5D II to a 5D III was a nice upgrade, especially for sports and wildlife. I sold my 7D after I got the 5D III as I just wasn't using it.