Whlle the new mirrorless bodies are undoubtedly exciting, I cannot agree that the R6 is a 7DII upgrade. You say it has 20Mpixels so offers similar resolution. BUT the pixels are all larger - by a factor of 1.6 linearly. That means if you want your images to have the same resolution, you will need to have all those longer lenses.
There was some considerable debate about the "effective focal length" when APS-C was introduced. Canon even implied that lenses were 1.6x longer in effective focal length at one time, but I still come across some who think lenses are "longer" in focal length when attached to an APS-C body. Nothing can change the actual focal length, but there was a factor contributing to the myth in that when comparing pixel sizes, 20Mpixels in APS-C did afford some resolution advantage over a full-frame of larger pixels.
The R6 does appear to be a more affordable upgrade however, and I think it will be popular. But if you are seriously considering an upgrade from a 7DII I think there is a dilemma. If you want to use your EF-S lenses on an R series, then to get almost the same resolution as you currently achieve, you will need the R5 as it's APS-C area has almost the same number of pixels as the 7DII.
But if you opt for an R6, you may need to consider additional lenses. As a 7DII user, I built up a collection of lenses for what I was originally aiming for - upgrading to a 5 series. An R6 would mean I need to purchase a 16-35 or 17-40 for the UWA replacement. And at the long end, a 500 or 600, although the 100-400 with extender might AF faster. But that would not give better resolution, except for one more possible factor. The AA filter on the 7DII appears to have been overcooked a little. If the aa filter on the R5/R6 are better., that might give an edge in improvement in resolution
I'd really like to see how the new 600 and 800 lenses compare between the R6 and R5 in real world evaluation, compared with a 100-400 1.4x extender.
There was some considerable debate about the "effective focal length" when APS-C was introduced. Canon even implied that lenses were 1.6x longer in effective focal length at one time, but I still come across some who think lenses are "longer" in focal length when attached to an APS-C body. Nothing can change the actual focal length, but there was a factor contributing to the myth in that when comparing pixel sizes, 20Mpixels in APS-C did afford some resolution advantage over a full-frame of larger pixels.
The R6 does appear to be a more affordable upgrade however, and I think it will be popular. But if you are seriously considering an upgrade from a 7DII I think there is a dilemma. If you want to use your EF-S lenses on an R series, then to get almost the same resolution as you currently achieve, you will need the R5 as it's APS-C area has almost the same number of pixels as the 7DII.
But if you opt for an R6, you may need to consider additional lenses. As a 7DII user, I built up a collection of lenses for what I was originally aiming for - upgrading to a 5 series. An R6 would mean I need to purchase a 16-35 or 17-40 for the UWA replacement. And at the long end, a 500 or 600, although the 100-400 with extender might AF faster. But that would not give better resolution, except for one more possible factor. The AA filter on the 7DII appears to have been overcooked a little. If the aa filter on the R5/R6 are better., that might give an edge in improvement in resolution
I'd really like to see how the new 600 and 800 lenses compare between the R6 and R5 in real world evaluation, compared with a 100-400 1.4x extender.
Comment