Had a play with the R5

[antoeknee]

Got it

Images look very detailed even with TC.

[Bill53]

Very impressive.

[@imagesBV]

The R6 has revitalised my photography...performance is fantastic....and superb ergonomics....45mp would be great but I we all have to draw a line.
Its amazing that the launch of these has been so successful in the current economic climate compounded by a big hike in prices from Canon ...they must be good.

[Brian Sugden]

I've done a bit of research on the R6, 100-500, 1.4 converter and 24-105 to replace my current set up and I have a slightly different opinion to others on this site. My current equipment consists of a 1DX, 7DII, 5DIII, 300mm f/2.8L IS II, 1.4III converter, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II, 70-200 f/4, 24-105 and 17-40. Comparing the R6 and 100-500 to the 7DII and 100-400 I would be saving about 6 ounces in weight. I'm now in my 70's and I'm not sure I can justify the cost just to save less than half a pound in weight nor do I have the inclination to learn another system and invest in upgrading the software etc. needed to process images. The quality I get from my current set-up meets my needs and I'm very happy with the results I get. This may not be a very popular opinion, so I'll be interested to see the responses I get, if any.

[@imagesBV]

.....fair point....but also factor in the other mirrorless advantages....focus accuracy, electronic shutter with 20 fps....'what you see is what you get' (all the advantages of live view in the viewfinder), better low light focussing, focus bracketing...focussing down to f11 and f22.....and sensor improvements, in body image stabilisation.....but you do give up the optical viewfinder. These additional extras my be academic if your needs wont take advantage of them.

If my objective was to go lightweight then I think you ultimately need a smaller sensor solution.

[antoeknee]

I've done a bit of research on the R6, 100-500, 1.4 converter and 24-105 to replace my current set up and I have a slightly different opinion to others on this site. My current equipment consists of a 1DX, 7DII, 5DIII, 300mm f/2.8L IS II, 1.4III converter, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II, 70-200 f/4, 24-105 and 17-40. Comparing the R6 and 100-500 to the 7DII and 100-400 I would be saving about 6 ounces in weight. I'm now in my 70's and I'm not sure I can justify the cost just to save less than half a pound in weight nor do I have the inclination to learn another system and invest in upgrading the software etc. needed to process images. The quality I get from my current set-up meets my needs and I'm very happy with the results I get. This may not be a very popular opinion, so I'll be interested to see the responses I get, if any.

Know now you feel Brian. I've a 5D3, 7D2, Sigma 150-600, 70-200 2.8, 24-105 and 16-35 f4. More than happy with results when shooting wildlife and landscapes.

If there was one thing I'd appreciate it would be better high ISO performance. Currently not too bothered by the weight issue. Cost would be major factor in any decision.

[Brian Sugden]

.....fair point....but also factor in the other mirrorless advantages....focus accuracy, electronic shutter with 20 fps....'what you see is what you get' (all the advantages of live view in the viewfinder), better low light focussing, focus bracketing...focussing down to f11 and f22.....and sensor improvements, in body image stabilisation.....but you do give up the optical viewfinder. These additional extras my be academic if your needs wont take advantage of them.

If my objective was to go lightweight then I think you ultimately need a smaller sensor solution.

'These additional extras my be academic if your needs wont take advantage of them'. I think that comment hits the nail on the head for me.