EOS R6 Mark II

THE REGRET (huge lettering): Buying Canon R6 II for better AF, after two decades of Nikon....... Canon is plain terrible on too many details. Can't live without: Z8 + Plena. Everything I do, I do with that combo... When there is a wider need, I just grab Tamron 28-75mm G2.. Enough.

The irony is that I had that exact complaint 12 years ago; I was running dance photography workshops as part of a (contemporary) dance festival I was running, and I’d hired a lot of cameras for participants. High ISO handling was featured with these Canon models, but I found I was having to use insa

I got frustrated with the K1's auto focus performance when shooting live music in low light venues and decided to look for an alternative. I looked at the mid range mirrorless options from Canon, Nikon and Sony e.g R6ii, R8, Z5ii, A7iv. None of them have close to the K1's ergonomics or feature set.

Hi, I’ve been shooting sports for a few years, currently using an r6ii body but all my glass is still EF mount. I make use of back button focus, and get great results most of the time, but occasionally the AF really really struggles to focus quickly, or re-focuses when I go to engage the shutter. Ma

I like the cropping capabilities of the R5 and their use in studio work, but the large file sizes are mostly a hassle, and thus the reason I was interested in the R6's. file size isn't the priority, what you want is the best autofocus for sports, which always means fully stacked sensors, like the r3

Just dusted off my trusty Canon 5D3 for a shoot the other day and I like the pictures out of it better than my R6II. Exposure preview is nice and AF and video are better on mirrorless, but that doesn't mean the images are. I also used one battery to shoot all day. A camera is just a tool. Having a D

This is one of the things that I've been in conflict with for a while now... One of the places I know for reviews and tips is YouTube, and every time I looked before getting my current setup there were people praising the Canon EF 100-400 mk II vs the RF 800mm f/11 or RF 100-400 because "muh best le

I'd say what you want is a new mid-range FF, something like a used R8 or similar (I don't know much about Sony or Nikon). Older FF often have much worse low-light capabilities, not to speak of AF and video specs. On the Canon side there's the R6 Mk I or R8, while the R6 Mk II is still ~1600 or so, b

Everything but Canon is great, because of their ban of third-party lenses. Some very good concert lenses like Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 are missing at all, available on Sony and Nikon only. Theroretically the Canon dual-pixel AF should be better in low-light than competition, but I compared my Sony with

I have both substantial m43 and canon FF gear. OM1.2 150-600, 40-150F4, 12-40 2.8. 75 1.8 etc. R5.2 R6.1 200-800, EF 100-400 L mk II. 24-105L, several L primes and non L primes. I would take the Om1.2 over my R6 for just about everything other than razor thin DOF work. I’d take my R5.2 for everythin