EOS R5 Mark II

If you have no skills, you’re still likely to take lousy photos whether you have $100 worth of gear or $20,000 worth of gear. Once you have a certain level of skill, lower quality gear can absolutely hold you back, especially if you’re shooting fast-moving subjects or in low light. Sports photograph

Any full frame camera from Canon, Nikon or Sony will work. If the light is really awful, use a 50 or 85mm prime at f/2.0 or faster, but an f/2.8 zoom should work fine, especially with modern denoise. I've shot volleyball and basketball with a (Canon) R6, R5 and now R5ii. With the RF 135mm f/1.8, RF

I know mirrorless is better quality images I’m not sure how true this is. Take for example if you have a Canon 6D Mark ii. A Canon RP will have exactly the same sensor so the inherent “quality” will be the same when using the same lenses. It is, however, the shooting experience that will be differen

for the photo nerds (and myself because I don't have many people to infodump this too that would appreciate it) I was on the crop sensor Canon R7 with the Sigma c 150-600mm originally, upgrade the lens to the Canon 100-500mm last year and while I loved how much faster and lighter it was, the loss of

The 50-200 will be my primary lens, probably with the 1.4xTC attached. My walkaround Canon kit was the R5ii + 100-500L. The 50-200 + 1.4x is a close equivalent with the advantage of f/4 throughout the range rather than f/4.5-7.1. The 40-150 f/2.8 just wasn't quite there with image quality with the 2

I can say that most of the indoor lights are pretty bad in terms of "good lighting". The lumens or brightness of these lights are way darker than we think. The OP's photos are the best the machine could have done. Honestly, from deep down, the noise reduction performance of Panasonic bodies are just

ok... well. my personal experience: I have upgraded and traded in a number of Canon bodies had the R. It produced very nice images. I hated the user interface. i had an RP.... it produced surprisingly nice images. but neither had AF that was suitable for birds in flight The R7 and R5 were much bette

No they don’t, they have an extremely similar lens selection with the very specific exception of the PF lenses that are unique to Nikon. But when you say EF lenses are too heavy for you….I mean all super telephoto lenses are going to be quite heavy, The Nikon Nikor Z 600mm is 3.2 lbs, that‘s only li

I did do a little sneaky thing by using the comparison tool at the "COMP" setting, where it scales the image the same. If you set it to FULL, you get the full pixel-peeping experience. That leads to a little tricker comparison, though... here's the X-T3 at ISO 200 vs the R5 II at ISO 12800. If we're

I see from your other posts, like https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAstrophotography/comments/1oeqlh4/some_random_questions/ that you have a Canon R5 Mark II and some long lenses. Did you ever buy the Canon RF 600 f/4? That would be an amazing astro lens. FYI, I use a a Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS II with an R5 (a