Upgrade Advice

[Flyfisher410]

I am currently contemplating an upgrade to my camera. I am currently undecided between the Canon R7 and R8. I have rented the R7 previously and found that the auto-focus is "jumpy" as I have read about in other articles and videos and the rolling shutter is quite evident. I am planning to rent the R8 for a trip in January to try it out. Is the lack of IBIS on the R8 a big deal? The camera I have now does not have IBIS, but I have always used lenses with IS. The R8 is also a full frame where the R7 is crop sensor. I have never had a full frame. Also would the RF 50 or 35mm 1.8 be fast enough to shoot handheld in low light without IS? Any feedback on these two cameras would be greatly appreciated.

 

[West Coast Birder]

Three questions, the answers to which may greatly help us provide feedback.

1) what camera do you currently have that you are upgrading from? And what lenses do you have?

2) what kind of subjects do you like to shoot? Landscapes, portrait, street, sports, just general family stuff, etc.

3) what is your budget and how soon are you planning to upgrade?

 

[paddler4]

IMHO, Sam's #2 is the starting point. What do you want or need in a camera? That entails what you intend to shoot, under what conditions you intend to shoot, and (often ignored) how you intend to display your images. Do you print? If so, how large?

Also, how old are you? I ask because one of the answers depends in part on age--how much weight you are willing to lug, and how steady your hands are.

IBIS matters more when distances are short; lens-based IS matters more when distances are long. The combination is the best. Do you need that? Depends on the answers to the questions above. I shot for years with wonderful cameras without IBIS (e.g., 5D IV), but there are circumstances where it helps a lot.

 

[3Rotor]

As mentioned above, there are many variables unanswered for the community to provide proper feedback. Crop vs Full Frame is a rabbit hole on its own that can be heavily influenced by the subjects you intend on capturing.

 

[paddler4]

And to explain a bit more: some of these things matter for some types of photography but not for others. For example, if you are displaying only on screen, shooting in good light, and shooting certain types of images, the difference between MFT, APS-C and FF is inconsequential. For other purposes, it can matter a fair amount. If you are displaying only on screen and not cropping a lot, there is no real advantage (and some disadvantages) to a high-megapixel sensor, but if you are printing large or cropping severely, a high pixel count can matter.

 

[Flyfisher410]

Upgrading from a Canon T5i. Lenses are 18-55mm EF and 50-250 EF Kit Lenses. I enjoy shooting wildlife and landscapes of our travels. I'd like to be able to do more with low light and street photography. I understand the APSC is advantageous for wildlife, but want to shoot more than just wildlife. Budget is flexible to a point, I'd like to stay around $2,800 -$3,500 at most, realizing my current lenses would need an adapter on the RF system. I'd like to upgrade within the next 6 months, but thats flexible as well, no real hurry.

 

[Anton Largiader]

I am currently contemplating an upgrade to my camera. I am currently undecided between the Canon R7 and R8. I have rented the R7 previously and found that the auto-focus is "jumpy" as I have read about in other articles and videos and the rolling shutter is quite evident. I am planning to rent the R8 for a trip in January to try it out. Is the lack of IBIS on the R8 a big deal? The camera I have now does not have IBIS, but I have always used lenses with IS. The R8 is also a full frame where the R7 is crop sensor. I have never had a full frame. Also would the RF 50 or 35mm 1.8 be fast enough to shoot handheld in low light without IS? Any feedback on these two cameras would be greatly appreciated.

There's a lot to cover in your question. The low light part, that really depends on how you want to shoot. The R7 probably has better high-ISO performance than the T5i, but it's not amazing. Most FF RF bodies will probably be better but you can look that up.

Wildlife and street seem like two very different tasks. For street, I'd think FF with the 35 or 50 primes that you mention would be great. For wildlife, the R7 with your existing 55-250 would be an inexpensive start that you could follow up with a 100-400 or 100-500 if you don't need to shoot at 2.8 because of low light.

 

[West Coast Birder]

I think you should get the R6 Mark II. The R7 is old and has a so-so focusing system. It clearly lacks many of the advances that have been incorporated into later bodies. The R5 is pretty expensive as is the Mark II version. The R6 Mark II, on the other hand straddles the R7 and R5 lines - it has 24 MP with excellent focus and low light performance. It is a step above the R6 in terms of MP. I think the R6 Mark II is the Goldilocks camera that will suit you for landscape, general people shooting, as well as wildlife. The only thing an R7 may bring to the table is significant croppability which may be useful for birds but not a huge factor for other wildlife.

 

[West Coast Birder]

The R6 II is available in the refurb store for $1799 regular price and $1699 when it goes on sale. You can get an R7 for about $1000 but honestly I wouldn’t since it is really long in the tooth. The R5 and its successor seem like overkill and they will blow your budget as well.

 

[Archibald]

I think I might be with Sam. The R6 II is a great camera and will serve you very well for many subjects. You need to mate it with a general purpose zoom to meet your sharpness and speed requirements.

IMO some more thought needs to into wildlife photography. Depending on your subjects and goals, the R6 II might be a tough choice unless you put a 600mm lens on it. Your demands might vary of course, but generally for good bird photography we quickly get into expensive gear. I agree about what was said about the R7. Maybe (just maybe) the R7 Mark II will be released next year, and if so, you could add it to your gear if you are serious about wildlife photography. You will still need a lens of around 400mm.

 

[gonzogolf]

I'll jump on the bandwagon and suggest an r62. If the rumored r72 were announced then maybe, but as someone who got frustrated waiting for a r63 that arrived a year late. I bought a used r5 and am glad I did as I would have lost a year of improved shooting. All of the improvements in focusing tech will serve you well, iso and improved resolution are game changers.

 

[West Coast Birder]

Following up on pricing, the R6 Mark II is available NEW for $1799 through the Canon Pricewatch street price program. Brand new with full 100% US warranty from an authorized dealer - can’t go wrong for a new item. Unless you get a refurb on sale for $1699, this is the best deal around.

Canon EOS R6 Mark II

www.cpricewatch.com

 

[paddler4]

I have an R6 Ii, and it’s a truly fabulous camera. However, no camera will be the best for all of the genres you mention, so you’ll have to decide what’s most important for you. I personally would not get a full frame camera with only 24 MPX for wildlife. Unless you carry very long lenses, you’ll end up cropping a lot, and 24 MPX doesn’t give you a great deal of leeway for that. On he rare occasions when I do wildlife, I sometimes took and old 7D first gen and left my R6 at home. But for other uses, it’s a truly great camera—good low light performance, excellent AF, good dynamic range, fabulous ergonomics, etc.

 

[Flyfisher410]

Thanks for all the feedback. I truly appreciate it.

 

[Nick5]

Thirty plus years ago when purchasing my first SLR, (Canon Minolta or Nikon) a major and deciding factor was how each body felt in my hand. All three were great cameras but the Canon Rebel clearly felt better in my hand.
Two Rebel SLR, and a Rebel XTi, 40D DSLR’s.
2 Gripped 7D, 2 Gripped 5D Mark III and now 2 Gripped 5D Mark IV’s I prefer a substantial body with a Battery Grip for Balance of heavier lenses, body posture in Portrait Orientation and also a body with a Battery Grip will cause pain in my hand.
For me a R6 is too small for me as I’m not a fan of the lighter smaller trend.
For me comfort factor is important.

 

[paddler4]

+1 to Nick's comment about ergonomics. However, different strokes. I find the R6 very comfortable. I slightly preferred the larger 5D IV, but it's not much of a difference. For me, weight is a consideration. I never use a grip; I don't find I need it, and it's more weight. I now also shoot an OM-1 II, which is smaller yet, and while it took me a bit to get used to the smaller size, I quickly found it reasonably comfortable. But Nick's preferences and mine aren't the issue. The issue is Nick's point that it's worth finding out what's comfortable for YOU.

 

[Mr Roboto]

... I enjoy shooting wildlife and landscapes of our travels. I'd like to be able to do more with low light and street photography. I understand the APSC is advantageous for wildlife, but want to shoot more than just wildlife ...

That's a very wide range of interests/subject matter. No one camera is going to excel with everything you mentioned. I agree with the others that the R6mk2 might be a solid choice for you.

However, if you are planning to shoot wildlife more than 50% of the time, I suggest that you consider the R5 (original) at the refurbs for only slightly more than the R6mk2. I've been loving my R5 for everything I can do with it - I consider it nearly perfect for me (for all the same subject matter that you are considering). Since then I've had no interest in getting another APS-C for wildlife. Don't discount the original just because there's a mk2

I think the R5 refurbs might drop to the $2k price levels soon after the holiday season.