Not sure, both look very much the same to me. I have the 7D mark ii and the 90D and love them both. The 90D has more MPs and id better with high ISO, but the autofocus system of the 7D ii is unbeatable. However, the addition of a used EF 500 f/4 ii has improved the picture quality tremendously. The eye-autofocus and in-camera stabilisation of the R6 is tempting, but I wait for the specs and release of the R7, before I replace any of my cameras.
3 years ago | 1
B is a better image but that could be processing. Modern focus systems are game changing and typically found in expensive cameras - there are many very wonderful, quality images taken on dslr cameras that will now be ‘cheaper’, so for me it is opportunity (can my camera help me get the shot in focus) and keeper rate (does my camera give me a number of shots to choose from in a sequence or do I have to pick ‘the one that is in focus’). If what you want to shoot doesn’t call for fast focus then don’t pay for the functionality. If what you want to photograph is easy to fill the frame with then don’t pay for the higher resolution. If what you want to photograph is small and fast moving, spend the money.
3 years ago | 1
Being a total amateur and only ever used an old Canon 400D and now moved to Fuji XT-2, I couldn't hazard a guess, but I like the look of B best!! (Sorry, probably not helpful!)
3 years ago | 1
Towhat aspect did it cost that amount ?? When if both taken in raw you also need to add on the yearly cost of the photo editing software
3 years ago | 1
I think A costs more but at that resolution it´s not really worth it.
3 years ago | 1
I think A is the more expensive camera… 🤷🏾♂️ When will you reveal the answer?
3 years ago
| 1
Will Goodlet
Can you tell which pic cost $1,700 more? A or B? And is it worth it?
both shot at ISO6400 @800mm
Researching a new video.
Thanks to everyone who answered!
A lot of people have been asking me if they should upgrade to the Canon R6 from a crop sensor DSLR (7D mark ii, 80D, 90D etc...) and I think it's not a straight yes or no answer.
Like most things in wildlife photography, it all depends on what YOU shoot, HOW you shoot and what lenses you have.
If you are often constrained by distance, and find yourself cropping a lot (like me) and you are not planning on increasing the focal length of your lens at the same time as upgrading, then I think it's very hard to beat the massive resolution advantage of the 7D mark ii.
The R6 shines much more brightly than the already very good 7D mark ii in capturing bird in flight and and fast moving birds, where eye-autofocus system and more importantly, the buffer depth and frame rate of the electronic shutter become important. It may also be true, that those using hides, or stalking on foot can move much closer to the subject. If you can regularly fill the frame, then the R6 is a better option.
Of Course, if you use the electronic shutter there is some risk of rolling shutter deforming the subject. This means that depending on the lens, the speed of the mechanical shutter is 'only' 12 FPS. BUT this is further reduced depending on your lens. This might drop down to 9 FPS - less than the 7D2!
The AF system on the 7D mark ii is still one of the best around even if it does feel archaic in comparison to mirrorless.
There is still a deep hidden value in the 7D mark ii for those either starting out in wildlife photography or those who, like me, think an extra $1700 might best be invested in improved glass.
After all, in a few years something else will have replaced the R6 and R5, but your lens may still be serving you well.
3 years ago (edited) | [YT] | 30