Canon 6D mark ii vs Canon RP

[AlmostNotable]

I am upgrading from a Canon 6D mainly because I want to have continuous auto focus. Most of my shooting would be portraits/self-portraits. Which one should I get? 

 

Or maybe a different camera altogether??

[AqHu]

Based only on the details you gave, I think the RP would be perfect for you. Unless there's a specific reason to choose the 6Dmii, I'd go with the RP for all the benefits only a mirrorless can provide.

[Hackentosher]

On 4/23/2019 at 5:35 AM, AlmostNotable said:

I am upgrading from a Canon 6D mainly because I want to have continuous auto focus. Most of my shooting would be portraits/self-portraits. Which one should I get? 

 

Or maybe a different camera altogether??

I'm looking to pick up a canon 6D, you selling?

 

Doesn't the RP have Canon's dual pixel AF? If so, I'd probably go for that if you're doing video. Plus it's a more up-to-date system, so the AF will probably perform better.

[cc143]

I'd go with neither, a used or grey market eos r or a used 5d4 or even 5d3 would probably suit you much better.

[Guest]

I agree, go for a used 5D4. I've been a Canon shooter most of my life. Been lucky to play with many other brands for extended periods and also spent time using most Canon bodies. The RP is OK, but the 5D4 is so much better if you can pick one up at a decent price. Canon refurb often have great bargains on them. 

 

Purely between the 6DII and the RP, I personally would go with the 6DII but that is because of the type of shooting I do. I am often tracking fast moving subjects and the refresh rate of ALL current mirrorless cameras I have tried including the Sony A9 leaves a lot to be desired. A few hours of shooting terns diving for instance and all the pixel lag ends up giving me a headache. I am sure for the kind of work you do, portraits, the RP would be the better option. 

[reptileexperts]

EOS RP is a fantastic camera, as long as you're not doing Video. If you were happy with the IQ of the 6D, you'll be very happy with the RP. 

 

Used a 5DII ->6D -> 5D III (current) -> EOS RP (travel and studio)

 

Canon EOS RP with 35mm f2.8 Macro RF. In studio with godox 400 Pro (x2) by Cody Conway, on Flickr

[AlmostNotable]

On 4/24/2019 at 9:21 PM, Hackentosher said:

I'm looking to pick up a canon 6D, you selling?

 

Doesn't the RP have Canon's dual pixel AF? If so, I'd probably go for that if you're doing video. Plus it's a more up-to-date system, so the AF will probably perform better.

Sure. My 6D has less than 7k shutter count, with original box/accessories/paperwork. Let me know if you are interested. 

[AlmostNotable]

On 4/24/2019 at 10:28 PM, cc143 said:

I'd go with neither, a used or grey market eos r or a used 5d4 or even 5d3 would probably suit you much better.

I have no experience with grey market cameras. Is it just the same camera without warranty? 

 

Also, what do you think about a new Sony A7iii instead of a used Canon 5d4? As they are going for the similar prices .

[AlmostNotable]

On 4/25/2019 at 1:11 PM, Phill104 said:

I agree, go for a used 5D4. I've been a Canon shooter most of my life. Been lucky to play with many other brands for extended periods and also spent time using most Canon bodies. The RP is OK, but the 5D4 is so much better if you can pick one up at a decent price. Canon refurb often have great bargains on them. 

 

Purely between the 6DII and the RP, I personally would go with the 6DII but that is because of the type of shooting I do. I am often tracking fast moving subjects and the refresh rate of ALL current mirrorless cameras I have tried including the Sony A9 leaves a lot to be desired. A few hours of shooting terns diving for instance and all the pixel lag ends up giving me a headache. I am sure for the kind of work you do, portraits, the RP would be the better option. 

Used Canon 5D4 are going for pretty much the same price as grey market Canon R or brand new Sony A7iii. Out of these three which would recommend? 

[LyondellBasell]

22 minutes ago, AlmostNotable said:

Used Canon 5D4 are going for pretty much the same price as grey market Canon R or brand new Sony A7iii. Out of these three which would recommend? 

Assuming you already have Canon lenses and don't want to have to sell them and buy into the Sony system:

 

If you don't mind a little extra size and are determined to get the fastest AF  - 5D4

If you want to jump on the hot new thing and try out the RF mount and the lens options it opens up to you - R.

[cc143]

25 minutes ago, AlmostNotable said:

Used Canon 5D4 are going for pretty much the same price as grey market Canon R or brand new Sony A7iii. Out of these three which would recommend? 

I'd probably take the 5d4, the eos r lacks some features of the 5d4 that I find sort of necessary like the dual card slots and the ergos are much betteretc. But, the r has the benefit of having the rf mount so you can adapt your glass, deeper buffer, evf and variangle touchscreen. 

 

So it sort of depends. I personally wouldn't buy the r because of the ergos, its great for a mirrorless camera, handles much better than sony's offerings, but, it has no joystick (although the touch to drag works pretty well), that stupid touchbar and no dual card slots, but honestly, if I wanted to upgrade now, I'd go for the r in a kit with an adapter and 24-105mm f/4 and just wait for a better r camera to come out down the line. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, AlmostNotable said:

Used Canon 5D4 are going for pretty much the same price as grey market Canon R or brand new Sony A7iii. Out of these three which would recommend? 

100% the 5D4. Unless you really want to head down the RF route, the 5D4 is superb. Two card slots, great build quality and most of all the ergonomics are wonderful. I've used all three of those cameras and would not hesitate to get the 5D4 as a stills camera if it was my money. For video exclusively I might consider the Sony but it would then be a tough decision. I would probably still get the 5D4.

[bowrilla]

The RP is interesting as long as you don't do video at all and as long as you're find with the laughable lens lineup so far. The RF lineup is sort of a joke if your in for prime lenses and in 2019 there'll only be the 85/1.2 coming - expect a price tag around 2000 bucks. Are you heavily invested in EF lenses you want to use with an adapter? 

 

The future is pretty much surely mirrorless and that means the EF mount will slowly die.

 

The Sony a7iii is a great camera for photography and offers some good video capabilities as well. The lens lineup is also better on the E-Mount and there are 3rd party offers. The body might be more expensive but the lenses can be a lot cheaper depending on the speed you want.

 

If you want the DSLR viewfinder, go with either a 5dmkiv or the 6dmkii. 

 

Thing is: these days you rarely find a really bad camera. They're all pretty good.

[cc143]

8 hours ago, bowrilla said:

The RP is interesting as long as you don't do video at all and as long as you're find with the laughable lens lineup so far. The RF lineup is sort of a joke if your in for prime lenses and in 2019 there'll only be the 85/1.2 coming - expect a price tag around 2000 bucks. Are you heavily invested in EF lenses you want to use with an adapter? 

 

The future is pretty much surely mirrorless and that means the EF mount will slowly die.

 

The Sony a7iii is a great camera for photography and offers some good video capabilities as well. The lens lineup is also better on the E-Mount and there are 3rd party offers. The body might be more expensive but the lenses can be a lot cheaper depending on the speed you want.

 

If you want the DSLR viewfinder, go with either a 5dmkiv or the 6dmkii. 

 

Thing is: these days you rarely find a really bad camera. They're all pretty good.

You get an adapter in the box that allows you to use EF glass seemlessly, i understand that adds to the bulk and weight, but lets face it if you are sticking an L lens on there anyway, the whole thing isn't that compact anyway. 

 

Canon did a great job with the RF lens lineup so far and they are bringing out 8 new ones this year, with probably a 35mm, 24mm 135mm and 100mm macro coming next. Thing is though, the ef equivalent lenses are all pretty great anyway and the adapter is seemless, I've tried it its like using the lens on my 5d3. I mean honestly, most of what people tend to buy is covered  by the end of the next year, unless you need something like a 500mm, in which case just adapt, its huge anyway and the ef ones are pretty great to begin with. 

 

What's wrong with the rp for video? I mean with the exception of lacking resolutions and framerates, but if you only shoot fhd at 60 or 30p, what's the problem?

 

I will second the thing with the bad camera though. 

[bowrilla]

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

You get an adapter in the box that allows you to use EF glass seemlessly, i understand that adds to the bulk and weight, but lets face it if you are sticking an L lens on there anyway, the whole thing isn't that compact anyway.

I'm aware of that. For me the added bulk and weight kind of goes against the whole appeal of a smaller, mirrorless camera. Of course, if you consider having a 5dmkiv aniways then this is less of an issue. But then - why not going for that in the first place?

 

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

Canon did a great job with the RF lens lineup so far and they are bringing out 8 new ones this year, with probably a 35mm, 24mm 135mm and 100mm macro coming next. Thing is though, the ef equivalent lenses are all pretty great anyway and the adapter is seemless, I've tried it its like using the lens on my 5d3. I mean honestly, most of what people tend to buy is covered  by the end of the next year, unless you need something like a 500mm, in which case just adapt, its huge anyway and the ef ones are pretty great to begin with. 

Can't really agree here. The lineup is extremely disappointing. As of now there are 4 lenses, two of which are primes and one of it is an L. The RP was intended to be an entry level FF mirrorless camera, most people won't go for the L glass. The other prime is actually a macro lens. In 2019 there'll only be two (!) versions of the 85/1.2L - again, this is really expensive glass, we're talking about 2k and above. None of those L lenses are really lightweight either. Imho that kind of misses the point of a mirrorless camera, FF or not.

 

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

What's wrong with the rp for video? I mean with the exception of lacking resolutions and framerates, but if you only shoot fhd at 60 or 30p, what's the problem?

If you only to 1080p, sure, the RP is absolutely fine. 4k on a cropped sensor with less than stellar fps is kind of a let down though if you compare this with the competition. 

 

Right now, I'm also in the market and I considered the RP but to me this whole system just doesn't make sense as of now and will at best be interesting in the second half of 2020, if Canon manages to get some mid range primes out there. Sigma hasn't announced any RF lenses either. For me the Sony E mount and the a7iii is a stronger contender here for FF mirrorless cameras. While the menus are nown for being - well, crappy and confusing, the IQ is stellar, the video capabilities are better, the lens lineup is far bigger, there are 3rd party lenses and if you want it, then you can benefit from IBIS as well. The body does cost more but the lenses are a lot cheaper.

 

But in all seriousness, if you don't print you pictures on billboards or have to shoot in terrible low light, an APS-C mirrorless system will do the trick either. Sure, you can't really acchieve the DoF of an 85/1.2 wide open - but there's hardly any use for that. That lens gets usuable at around 1.8-2.0 and you can get to that kind of DoF with good APS-C lenses. Sure, the sensor will have a little more noise at higher ISOs but you'll probably only notice that when comparing it directly with an FF shot of the same setting.

[cc143]

18 hours ago, bowrilla said:

snip

That's really disingenuous, its comparable to the Sony system. Also, physics precludes anyone from making a small enough FF camera system anyway, my biggest issue with Sony is that they tried in the first place and ended up with something that really isn't that small, if anything its really comparable to a similar dslr, ergos were crap because they tried to make it smaller and so was battery life. The system improved immensly once they added some more chunck to it. 

 

Yes, the cheap glass isn't there, but that's only a couple of lenses and you can still adapt. The pro glass is more important for them at this stage. The cheaper glass will probably come next release cycle, once they have covered most of the bases, allowing them to bring out a proper camera vs doing it the other way round. Also sure the 35mm 1.8 is a macro lens, but its still a 35mm f/1.8 . A lens can be 2 things, people have been using Macro lenses for portraiture for ages, and the 16mm f/1.4 by fuji's close focusing ability makes it a very interesting lens, while it still is a 24mm equiv. 

 

There are other faults of the rp that i'd consider, a $1200 entry level FF camera being unusable for 4k isn't an issue, the lack of a seperate sd card door and the use of the smaller battery are. The lens lineup of the Sony isn't far bigger either. Again, all EF glass since 1987 will work on any rf camera seemlessly. Sony doesn't have that and if your argument is about size and weight then just use the 24-105 or the 35mm both are excellent lenses, very light and swiss army knife focal lengths. IBIS is a fair criticism, but again, it's probably coming down the line.

 

I agree with the APS-C thing completely, if you want something small, you should go APS-C, FF can't be viable, and I actually prefer shooting it for things like sports for a number of reasons. DoF is a contention, but...lets put it this way, if you really need a 50/85mm 1.2L, then short of some leica lenses there's very little that will get you there. High ISO performance of most cameras these days is ridculous anyway, if I can shoot at 12800 and get a useable image then I can't complain, hell I can't really complain at 6400, and that is easily achieved by my 7 year old 5d3. 

[bowrilla]

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

That's really disingenuous, its comparable to the Sony system. Also, physics precludes anyone from making a small enough FF camera system anyway, my biggest issue with Sony is that they tried in the first place and ended up with something that really isn't that small, if anything its really comparable to a similar dslr, ergos were crap because they tried to make it smaller and so was battery life. The system improved immensly once they added some more chunck to it.

They managed to make the body small with the RP and the a7iii isnot overtly big or bulky. Leica made the incredible digital M series with FF sensors AND a rangefinder system, which definitely is bigger than an EVF. Sure, you won't be able to go any smaller bodywise. The lenses of course need to be bigger, that's also obvious. But you can still aim for something not so bulky.

 

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

Yes, the cheap glass isn't there, but that's only a couple of lenses and you can still adapt. The pro glass is more important for them at this stage. The cheaper glass will probably come next release cycle, once they have covered most of the bases, allowing them to bring out a proper camera vs doing it the other way round.

Well, why would you aim for pro grade lenses on entry level cameras that most pro photographers won't consider as their tool? That doesn't make any sense. Canon shoule have made a more appealing lens lineup to start the RF lineupe. I'm not saying something like the nifty fifty but why not a 50/1.4? That's a good lens and an even better compromise between speed and weight. Some mild wide angle prime (granted, THAT at least they have) as well - the only option that actually fits the audience of the RP. Put along a proper portrait lense (which wasn't even in the original lineup and is only coming in 2019 - in two bloody versions for each probably well beyond 2k) between 80 and 90mm with something like f/1.8, top it off with a nice kit lens zoom and some more premium zooms and you're good. 

 

If you're forced to use adapted EF lenses in the foreseeable future than the lineup isn't good. Simple as that. And that's exactly what a lot of people will have to do because the price tag of those L lenses doesn't fit the bodies in the R lineup. Canon is clearly aware of that mediocre at best start lineup and that's exactly why they're giving that adapter in a bundle. Canon's (and Nikon's) take on the mirrorless market is quite a miss at this point. But having a lightweight and slimmer body just to adapt bulky EF lenses is a bit weird.

 

This is like a mainboard manufacturer inventing a new tiny mainboard form factor below ITX that is more flexible though, but you only get HEDT stuff because the socket is very special, but they promise you that in 1 1/2 to 2 years there will be more affordable mid- to high end stuff, because they're working on it, in the mean time you're forced to use an adapter, that adds so much bulk that you're ending up with a bigger package than with regular ITX. 

 

Right now you just have to believe in Canon to deliver sometime in 2020 or 2021. That's quite a stretch. If there were more lenses, than the RP would be a very interesting camera.

 

If you want mirrorless FF as of today with proper native and 3rd party lenses, then you have to consider Sony. 

 

I'd rather get a 6d mkii than an RP. Because if you're okay with more bulk and weight, why not going with a DSLR then?

 

I mean, at the end it's a decision based on personal preference and again, I'm not saying the RP as a camera is bad, absolutely not, I'm just saying the system isn't mature yet and still very unbalanced.

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

I agree with the APS-C thing completely, if you want something small, you should go APS-C, FF can't be viable, and I actually prefer shooting it for things like sports for a number of reasons.

FF is great if you either need to have the IQ to print huge, to work in really tricky low light situations or you need more options in the ultra wide angle area.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, bowrilla said:

They managed to make the body small with the RP and the a7iii isnot overtly big or bulky. Leica made the incredible digital M series with FF sensors AND a rangefinder system, which definitely is bigger than an EVF. Sure, you won't be able to go any smaller bodywise. The lenses of course need to be bigger, that's also obvious. But you can still aim for something not so bulky.

 

Well, why would you aim for pro grade lenses on entry level cameras that most pro photographers won't consider as their tool? That doesn't make any sense. Canon shoule have made a more appealing lens lineup to start the RF lineupe. I'm not saying something like the nifty fifty but why not a 50/1.4? That's a good lens and an even better compromise between speed and weight. Some mild wide angle prime (granted, THAT at least they have) as well - the only option that actually fits the audience of the RP. Put along a proper portrait lense (which wasn't even in the original lineup and is only coming in 2019 - in two bloody versions for each probably well beyond 2k) between 80 and 90mm with something like f/1.8, top it off with a nice kit lens zoom and some more premium zooms and you're good. 

 

If you're forced to use adapted EF lenses in the foreseeable future than the lineup isn't good. Simple as that. And that's exactly what a lot of people will have to do because the price tag of those L lenses doesn't fit the bodies in the R lineup. Canon is clearly aware of that mediocre at best start lineup and that's exactly why they're giving that adapter in a bundle. Canon's (and Nikon's) take on the mirrorless market is quite a miss at this point. But having a lightweight and slimmer body just to adapt bulky EF lenses is a bit weird.

 

This is like a mainboard manufacturer inventing a new tiny mainboard form factor below ITX that is more flexible though, but you only get HEDT stuff because the socket is very special, but they promise you that in 1 1/2 to 2 years there will be more affordable mid- to high end stuff, because they're working on it, in the mean time you're forced to use an adapter, that adds so much bulk that you're ending up with a bigger package than with regular ITX. 

 

Right now you just have to believe in Canon to deliver sometime in 2020 or 2021. That's quite a stretch. If there were more lenses, than the RP would be a very interesting camera.

 

If you want mirrorless FF as of today with proper native and 3rd party lenses, then you have to consider Sony. 

 

I'd rather get a 6d mkii than an RP. Because if you're okay with more bulk and weight, why not going with a DSLR then?

 

I mean, at the end it's a decision based on personal preference and again, I'm not saying the RP as a camera is bad, absolutely not, I'm just saying the system isn't mature yet and still very unbalanced.

FF is great if you either need to have the IQ to print huge, to work in really tricky low light situations or you need more options in the ultra wide angle area.

Having had images on billboards taken on APS-C bodies, cropped too, I would argue your last point. The printed image does not need the resolution many are lead at believe. It is all about how you view the final results. It really is only when pixel peeping the difference is noticeable these days, or with heavy cropping with certain caveats. FF in itself is not the advantage, pixel density vs pixels on subject is.

 

As for the compact system argument, it falls down in many ways. I can pack up two systems, on DSLR and one ML, and to get similar versatility and the same average setup the difference will be negligible. 

 

If if you want to see the exact opposite, when a ML camera ends up considerably more bulky, take a look at the new Panasonic FF with their monster of a 50mm. It makes a 5D4 with Canon 50mm 1.4 L look tiny.

[bowrilla]

3 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Having had images on billboards taken on APS-C bodies, cropped too, I would argue your last point. The printed image does not need the resolution many are lead at believe. It is all about how you view the final results. It really is only when pixel peeping the difference is noticeable these days, or with heavy cropping with certain caveats. FF in itself is not the advantage, pixel density vs pixels on subject is.

I actually refered to noise rather than resolution. Most bildboards aren't aren't viewed from any closer than like 2m, nobody needs 200-300dpi fine art photograpic prints for this. If you do that for a living you might want to look at higher IQ with less noise. There's no real reason other than that imho.

 

4 hours ago, Phill104 said:

As for the compact system argument, it falls down in many ways. I can pack up two systems, on DSLR and one ML, and to get similar versatility and the same average setup the difference will be negligible. 

Well, if you find the right lenses, then indeed, the difference can be small though still noticeable.

[cc143]

21 hours ago, bowrilla said:

 

 

 

its simple, if the 6d2 is interchangeable in terms of specs and price with the rp or r, which is very close in price really, then you end up with a camera that can do everything the 6d2 does, has better AF coverage, which is the biggest problem of the 6d2 and also can take both rf and ef lenses, giving you a camera that can use both when they are released down the line, wether that is in 2 years or 5 or 10. 

 

That is a +, because you can use both ef and rf lenses, while with the 6d2, you can only use the EF mount, which is great, but still, there arebenefits to be had from the rf, both now and in the future, so I don't see why you wouldn;t go for the r or rp really if they are indeed interchangeable. 

[Guest]

On 4/30/2019 at 9:28 PM, cc143 said:

its simple, if the 6d2 is interchangeable in terms of specs and price with the rp or r, which is very close in price really, then you end up with a camera that can do everything the 6d2 does, has better AF coverage, which is the biggest problem of the 6d2 and also can take both rf and ef lenses, giving you a camera that can use both when they are released down the line, wether that is in 2 years or 5 or 10. 

 

That is a +, because you can use both ef and rf lenses, while with the 6d2, you can only use the EF mount, which is great, but still, there arebenefits to be had from the rf, both now and in the future, so I don't see why you wouldn;t go for the r or rp really if they are indeed interchangeable. 

I personally don’t feel they are interchangeable. The two new bodies have some drawbacks as well as a few advantages. Overall they are good, but I feel another generation or two is needed before I would make the switch. I also find bodies are more of a consumable item, it is the lenses that make a system. As the R mount grows I am sure it will be wonderful. Currently there is little to make it a winner over EF.

[cc143]

2 hours ago, Phill104 said:

I personally don’t feel they are interchangeable. The two new bodies have some drawbacks as well as a few advantages. Overall they are good, but I feel another generation or two is needed before I would make the switch. I also find bodies are more of a consumable item, it is the lenses that make a system. As the R mount grows I am sure it will be wonderful. Currently there is little to make it a winner over EF.

Your point is exactly what makes it a winner over the EF system even if the bodies aren't there yet, you can use the entire EF system and whatever RF lens strikes your fancy, and if it does end up being a dud, just go with an EF camera afterwards. 

 

Also, so do the EF mount bodies, no camera is without drawbacks. My point is, if you need a camera now, go with an eos r, unless you are a pro  and need a main not backup camera, in which case the 5d4 is a better option, but other than that, buy a used r, get into the system, use EF lenses and any RF lens you like and when and if they release a good body (which by the way is pretty tough not to manage, I mean you need what? another card slot and a joystick?) just upgrade.

[ThePointblank]

12 hours ago, cc143 said:

Your point is exactly what makes it a winner over the EF system even if the bodies aren't there yet, you can use the entire EF system and whatever RF lens strikes your fancy, and if it does end up being a dud, just go with an EF camera afterwards. 

 

Also, so do the EF mount bodies, no camera is without drawbacks. My point is, if you need a camera now, go with an eos r, unless you are a pro  and need a main not backup camera, in which case the 5d4 is a better option, but other than that, buy a used r, get into the system, use EF lenses and any RF lens you like and when and if they release a good body (which by the way is pretty tough not to manage, I mean you need what? another card slot and a joystick?) just upgrade.

Correct. And some of the existing RF lenses are absolutely killer in terms of their performance, such as the 28-70mm f/2 lens, and the 50mm f/1.2 as well. Canon's roadmap indicates at least 6 more RF lenses to be released by the end of 2020, and judging by the existing lineup, they will be killer sharp.

[cc143]

6 hours ago, ThePointblank said:

Correct. And some of the existing RF lenses are absolutely killer in terms of their performance, such as the 28-70mm f/2 lens, and the 50mm f/1.2 as well. Canon's roadmap indicates at least 6 more RF lenses to be released by the end of 2020, and judging by the existing lineup, they will be killer sharp.

Don't forget the 24-105mm, a great all round lens. I have the EF version 1 and its a great compromise for general everyday stuff. 

 

Plus the 35mm f/1.8 is also a great swiss army knife lens, and one the EF system is lacking, not to mention the added macro functionality. In short all lenses in the rf system are great in one way or another and the system has a lot of potential. If only they could have released them in an rf mount and kept develping dslrs, I don't really like mirrorless systems myself, other than the fuji and that only because its extremely capable for the cost, and even then I'd much rather have my 5d. That camera is simply sublime, all of them are, regardless of the extreme criticism of the mk4. I have long said, if it had 1 more fps, a better, faster card to get a somehwat deeper buffer and 6 more mps without an AA filter, it would be the perfect camera.