Upgrade R6 or lenses?

Hello guys,

I would like to ask for help if possible. I have R6 and not a quite fond of it due to the high amount of cropping I do. I shoot mainly planes and animals and then normal stuff like landscapes, etc. I also have R7 to pair it with.

So, I'm seeking some upgrade and not sure what to choose.

First is obvious option - upgrade R6 to R5 or R6II. Not sure if R6II would be big upgrade (some thing are nice, like variable focus zones, etc.) and not sure if R5 isn't outdated and if it doesn't have hidden costs like completely new memory cards and more storage room.
Second option is upgrade my main zoom lens - I use EF 100-400 L II and it's great. Sometimes I find it misbehaving on my R6, but I'm not sure if RF 100-500 L is that big upgrade to justify the cost. And plus, I would loose reach on R7 as I have EF 1.4 extender.
And last option is to upgrade my walkaround lens - I have EF 24-70 f/4 L IS now and this is probably my most used lens, that is on camera 90% of time. But sometimes I find it lacking mainly in videos - the zoom ring is stiff, IS is not that good on R6, etc. So I though I would upgrade it to RF 24-70 f/2.8 L lens.

What do you think is the most upgrade?

Thank you very much for help

If you want more reach then going from a R6 to a R6II won’t do you much good. It gives you only 4 megapixels more. I would suggest a R7, as no other camera will give you so much reach but you already have one. So maybe invest in longer glass?

If you were to buy the RF 100-500mm and pair it with the RF 1.4 extender on the R7 and taking into account the crop factor, that would give you 1120mm at f/10. But yes, lens and extender are both quite pricey.

A possible alternative would be the RF 800/11. The f/11 is what scares people away but I got very nice results with the lens. It’s lightweight, has a very effective IS, is affordable and also takes an extender quite well (@f/16!).

I think it would help if you said what you photograph and under what circumstances. for example, if you are cropping a lot because you do birds in daylight, the R7 might make the most sense, but for other purposes, not.

I have the r6 II, and it is a fabulous camera that has so far worked flawlessly with the EF lenses I use with it. (I have only one RF lens, the 24-105.) However, if cropping is your issue, I agree that this isn't a sensible upgrade.

Get a 2x extender, or two...

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19569756
If you want more reach then going from a R6 to a R6II won’t do you much good. It gives you only 4 megapixels more. I would suggest a R7, as no other camera will give you so much reach but you already have one. So maybe invest in longer glass?

If you were to buy the RF 100-500mm and pair it with the RF 1.4 extender on the R7 and taking into account the crop factor, that would give you 1120mm at f/10. But yes, lens and extender are both quite pricey.

A possible alternative would be the RF 800/11. The f/11 is what scares people away but I got very nice results with the lens. It’s lightweight, has a very effective IS, is affordable and also takes an extender quite well (@f/16!).

Thank you. I have R7 as my secondary camera and I pair it either with 100-400 or 100-400 with EF 1.4 extender. That's why I'm hesitant on RF 100-500, reviews says it's similar.

About the 800, I saw it and I'm bit affraid of the design with pump and not beeing sealed.

I'm thinking if the RF 24-70 f/2.8 would be the biggest upgrade.

paddler4 wrote in post #19569804
I think it would help if you said what you photograph and under what circumstances. for example, if you are cropping a lot because you do birds in daylight, the R7 might make the most sense, but for other purposes, not.

I have the r6 II, and it is a fabulous camera that has so far worked flawlessly with the EF lenses I use with it. (I have only one RF lens, the 24-105.) However, if cropping is your issue, I agree that this isn't a sensible upgrade.

Thank you. Yeah, I have R7 for birds, animals at ZOO and planes at airshows. I like it, the ergonomics is much better than R6. What bugs me about R6 is the menu options R7 has and R6 doesn't - being able to quick select tracking object, being able to change the shape of AF zones, etc.

awacsCZE wrote in post #19570043
Thank you. I have R7 as my secondary camera and I pair it either with 100-400 or 100-400 with EF 1.4 extender. That's why I'm hesitant on RF 100-500, reviews says it's similar.

About the 800, I saw it and I'm bit affraid of the design with pump and not beeing sealed.

I'm thinking if the RF 24-70 f/2.8 would be the biggest upgrade.

Maybe, but 24-70mm won’t give you more reach…

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19570068
Maybe, but 24-70mm won’t give you more reach…

Sure But not everything is about reach if the 100-500 is not an upgrade. Technically, I get 560mm with what I have now on R7. If IQ and AF isn't that much better to justify the cost of 100-500 it would be better to upgrade f/4 to f/2.8