EOS R6 Mark II

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

I was planning on getting a lense (sigma 18-50 or tamron 17-70) with the a6700 and later getting a converter. But I don’t know if it would be a better choice to get a canon r mount and converter. Ik R6 MkII is a choice many recommend but I did prefer to have the 4k120 available in the a6700.

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

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