Canon R6 II R6II AF is awesome

[Only RF]

When I purchased my R5 I sold my 7D2 and R. I said I'd never have two bodies again but I forgot about one important element. GAS. The R5 is an excellent camera and I'm still not sure why I sold it. I really liked my 5D4 and R at 30mp. That for me that was the sweat spot and I had concerns about going down to 20mp with the R6. I guess I sail a different ship because for FF prefer lower megapixels.

Two changes I made this year. I will only use my R7 with my 100-500. I won't use the 1.4 on it for a trial period. Not that I have not been successful the keeper rate does drop. With the full zoom, e crop and TC math it is sort like hand holding at 1120mm. You can see it in the EVF even with the stabilization enabled.

I used my R6II for the usual landscape/urban but this year started using it more for action. My keeper rates are impressive. Anything OOF the other day were errors I made. It even performs very well with the TC which I have used with it quite a bit lately.

The other day.

• Canon EOS R6m2
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 159.0 mm
• ƒ/5
• 1/3200 sec
• ISO 400

I shot the Volta in Portugal in early spring and the same thing.

• Canon EOS R6m2
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 100

Polo

 

[ctitanic]

Nice pictures! I recently got the Mark I and the AF is amazing. Overall, I think that the R6 has been one of the best camera Canon has ever released.

 

[Only RF]

Nice pictures! I recently got the Mark I and the AF is amazing. Overall, I think that the R6 has been one of the best camera Canon has ever released.

Thanks

 

[Dave Williams]

Nice shots indeed. I do wonder if I should have bought the R6ii instead of the R7 as a back up for the R5 as I really don't like the R7 that much!

 

[Only RF]

Nice shots indeed. I do wonder if I should have bought the R6ii instead of the R7 as a back up for the R5 as I really don't like the R7 that much!

I'm on the fence as well with the R7. I doubt I'll be upgrading my R6II. AF may improve etc but it's like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll wait to see what Canon offers with the R7II if it ever comes out. The only thing I like better on the R7 than the R6II (and other bodies) is the QC dial position. I didn't like it at first but adapted pretty quickly. More natural position for the thumb. However I wish the R7 had a QC2 dial as well.

 

[Chris Summers]

I recently moved from the R to the R6 MkII and really like it for a full frame camera. I went from the 7D MII to the R7 and while I like quite a few things, I am not as impressed as with the R6 MkII.

 

[ctitanic]

Nice shots indeed. I do wonder if I should have bought the R6ii instead of the R7 as a back up for the R5 as I really don't like the R7 that much!

Well, as an ex R7 owner I can tell you that I’m happier with the R6 than the R7. The R5 is probably better but I don’t like the file size or resolution. For me the sweat spot is from 20 to 24 Mp.

 

[Hali]

When I purchased my R5 I sold my 7D2 and R. I said I'd never have two bodies again but I forgot about one important element. GAS. The R5 is an excellent camera and I'm still not sure why I sold it. I really liked my 5D4 and R at 30mp. That for me that was the sweat spot and I had concerns about going down to 20mp with the R6. I guess I sail a different ship because for FF prefer lower megapixels.

Two changes I made this year. I will only use my R7 with my 100-500. I won't use the 1.4 on it for a trial period. Not that I have not been successful the keeper rate does drop. With the full zoom, e crop and TC math it is sort like hand holding at 1120mm. You can see it in the EVF even with the stabilization enabled.

I used my R6II for the usual landscape/urban but this year started using it more for action. My keeper rates are impressive. Anything OOF the other day were errors I made. It even performs very well with the TC which I have used with it quite a bit lately.

The other day.

View attachment 30137

I shot the Volta in Portugal in early spring and the same thing.

View attachment 30138

Polo
View attachment 30140

Great shots and a great explanation and review. I have a bit of GAS lately and was thinking of the R6II. I’m retired now so the R5II is out of my reach

 

[Only RF]

Great shots and a great explanation and review. I have a bit of GAS lately and was thinking of the R6II. I’m retired now so the R5II is out of my reach

Glad you liked the review. R5II out of my reach too.

 

[Only RF]

Here is one with a 1.4 mounted. Fast bird through reeds.

• Canon EOS R6m2
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/6400 sec
• ISO 2500

 

[Hali]

Here is one with a 1.4 mounted. Fast bird through reeds.
View attachment 30201

Wow that's fantastic. And through the reeds!

 

[chipman]

And now they're talking about the Mark 3 -

Early Canon EOS R6 Mark III Specifications

We have reported a couple of times that a Canon EOS R6 Mark III could be coming in late 2024. Obviously Canon has a couple of other cameras to manufacture and get in the hands of the hoards of people…

www.canonrumors.com

 

[ctitanic]

And now they're talking about the Mark 3 -

Early Canon EOS R6 Mark III Specifications

We have reported a couple of times that a Canon EOS R6 Mark III could be coming in late 2024. Obviously Canon has a couple of other cameras to manufacture and get in the hands of the hoards of people…

www.canonrumors.com

Hahahahahahaha ---- I can't believe it.

 

[Dcweather]

I'm starting to favour my R8 (same af as R6 ii) with the 600mm F11+1.4xTC for birds over the R7 with 100-400mm just because of the better AF. I mean F16 and birds in flight - it's insane! Iamstarting to wonder if the 800mm RF F11 would be better than the RF 600mm+ the TC. Opinions woul be welcomed.

 

[ctitanic]

I'm starting to favour my R8 (same af as R6 ii) with the 600mm F11+1.4xTC for birds over the R7 with 100-400mm just because of the better AF. I mean F16 and birds in flight - it's insane! Iamstarting to wonder if the 800mm RF F11 would be better than the RF 600mm+ the TC. Opinions woul be welcomed.

Keep in mind that sometimes too much zoom is not a good thing. Specially for birds in flight. At least that's my experience. Between my EF100-400 vs EF100-400+1.4xTC, I have a better performance using the lens without the adapter because at 400 it's easier to locate the bird.

The 800 without TC will perform better than the 600+TC.

 

[Dave Williams]

Agree with @ctitanic I have never found a lens that performs equally with a TC than without and that includes some f4 and f2.8 telephotos . With the gear you have, especially if you have the EF 100-400, I'd be thinking of trading it in and buying the RF 100-500. Currently available from Panamoz for £1900, it's an "L" quality lens and you won't regret it if you can stretch to one. The RF 800mmf11 which I never liked personally, costs £770.

 

[Dcweather]

Keep in mind that sometimes too much zoom is not a good thing. Specially for birds in flight. At least that's my experience. Between my EF100-400 vs EF100-400+1.4xTC, I have a better performance using the lens without the adapter because at 400 it's easier to locate the bird.

The 800 without TC will perform better than the 600+TC.

Yes, I agree with BIF and the 100-400 RF which I have. Often not enough reach on the R8 though. I like trying to get the owls in flight and one day one will come close enough! I suspect you are right about the 800mm RF.

 

[Dcweather]

Agree with @ctitanic I have never found a lens that performs equally with a TC than without and that includes some f4 and f2.8 telephotos . With the gear you have, especially if you have the EF 100-400, I'd be thinking of trading it in and buying the RF 100-500. Currently available from Panamoz for £1900, it's an "L" quality lens and you won't regret it if you can stretch to one. The RF 800mmf11 which I never liked personally, costs £770.

Yes, I do agree. I tried the 100-500mm RF on the Canon trial scheme. It was good but quite heavy. I like the 100-400 RF for its closer mf distance for butterflies,etc. Of course i would like both and usually seel what I can to finance new purchases but I can't raise £1900 like that this time, especially if i keepthe 100-400mm but I do agree with your logic.

 

[ctitanic]

Yes, I agree with BIF and the 100-400 RF which I have. Often not enough reach on the R8 though. I like trying to get the owls in flight and one day one will come close enough! I suspect you are right about the 800mm RF.

My problem with any lens which wide open is F11 is that at this aperture you are forced to use the lens when you are in a very well illuminated area. If you are in the wood or cloudy day the result will be very noisy photos. At F11 doing BIF will also end in very noisy photos. That's my issue with those lenses.