Advice Needed - Canon RP vs R8 vs 6D Mark II

[dzvolkau]

Hello from Prague!
I'm a newbie in photography and trying to practice on weekends and holidays. Over the past year, I've spent many days in the field with my Canon 700D and discovered that I enjoy capturing images in challenging lighting conditions. So, I decided to explore the world of full-frame cameras.

After researching the market, I found that within my budget (not more than €1,300), I have three options:

• Used Canon EOS 6D Mark II – €734
• New Canon EOS RP – ~€900 (used one costs €614)
• Used Canon EOS R8 – €1,300

It seems that any of these three cameras would be a significant upgrade in my case. Based on tech reviews, the R8 appears to be a step up compared to the other two.

What do you think about these cameras? As a beginner who primarily practices landscape photography and occasionally wildlife photography, does it make sense to invest in the best option?

 

[KJ_North]

I guess it all depends what you are after the camera to do for you. I bought my Canon EOS R barely 1 year ago when there were many other options out there like the R8 etc. But the price was so attractive it really was a no brainer and the camera can do everything i want it to do. Newer cameras advertise lots of "New" features but determine if the new features will really make a difference for what you are planning on doing.

 

[KJ_North]

Forgot to add the 6d Mark ii is not the same lens mount as the EOS R series of cameras. So keep that in mind as well.

 

[dzvolkau]

Forgot to add the 6d Mark ii is not the same lens mount as the EOS R series of cameras. So keep that in mind as well.

Thank you for the suggestion! Primarily, I use my current camera for landscape photography and occasionally for wildlife while hiking. It seems all of these options could work well for me, but if we are talking about image quality, the case for the Canon R8 is not clear for me. Does it make sense to spend an additional $400, or would it be a waste of money in my case?

 

[KJ_North]

Well it all depends if you want the newer technology in the EOS R system. Mirrorless vs DSLR etc. I used to have a 6D Mark ii and it was an excellent camera. I had no complaints with it at all. Great sensor etc. You really cant go wrong with it. The R8 shines in its auto-focusing which is much improved from the older 6D mark ii especially with wildlife. Plus a little improved in high ISO situations.

 

[Thiophilos]

Hello from Prague!
I'm a newbie in photography and trying to practice on weekends and holidays. Over the past year, I've spent many days in the field with my Canon 700D and discovered that I enjoy capturing images in challenging lighting conditions. So, I decided to explore the world of full-frame cameras.

After researching the market, I found that within my budget (not more than €1,300), I have three options:

• Used Canon EOS 6D Mark II – €734
• New Canon EOS RP – ~€900 (used one costs €614)
• Used Canon EOS R8 – €1,300

It seems that any of these three cameras would be a significant upgrade in my case. Based on tech reviews, the R8 appears to be a step up compared to the other two.

What do you think about these cameras? As a beginner who primarily practices landscape photography and occasionally wildlife photography, does it make sense to invest in the best option?

You haven't mentioned lenses. What about lenses? What lenses do you already own, or would like to buy? A single full frame lens can make your budget look very small.

 

[dzvolkau]

You haven't mentioned lenses. What about lenses? What lenses do you already own, or would like to buy? A single full frame lens can make your budget look very small.

Thank you for a good question! Here is what I have:
- Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM
- Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS STM
- Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
After selling my current camera, I plan to replace the second lens with a full-frame compatible alternative.

 

[davholla]

I believe that the autofocus on the RP is not as good as EOS R8 or EOS R7.

 

[dzvolkau]

As I understand, the 6D and RP provide similar image quality, with the main differences being size (the RP is smaller), battery life (the 6D has a much larger capacity), and the focus system (which is better in the RP). On the other hand, the main advantage of the R8 is the significantly improved focus system and shutter speed (40 fps). Based on customer feedback, it appears that the R8 does not have a significant improvement in image quality compared to the 6D/RP.

So, it seems I need to decide whether to spend an additional ~600 euros on features that will bring significant improvements only in my minor interest, wildlife photography, or save that money for a better lens and choose either the 6D or RP.

 

[Thiophilos]

Thank you for a good question! Here is what I have:
- Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM
- Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS STM
- Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
After selling my current camera, I plan to replace the second lens with a full-frame compatible alternative.

A full-frame alternative would be the RF 24-105 f4-7.1 IS. It is a good lens but not great, and is not going to give you much advantage in challenging lighting conditions.

As an alternative, you could consider a used EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 for the 700D, and save until you have a more robust budget for full frame gear in the future. Mirrorless and FF are great but very expensive.

 

[dzvolkau]

A full-frame alternative would be the RF 24-105 f4-7.1 IS. It is a good lens but not great, and is not going to give you much advantage in challenging lighting conditions.

As an alternative, you could consider a used EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 for the 700D, and save until you have a more robust budget for full frame gear in the future. Mirrorless and FF are great but very expensive.

Thank you for the advice! The "RF 24-105 f4-7.1 IS" looks like a good and affordable replacement for my EF-S lens. Also, regarding the 700D, I plan to sell it right after getting a full-frame camera.

 

[dzvolkau]

Just to close the thread: Eventually, I decided to go with a used Canon EOS R (~800 euros). Now I'm thinking of getting a new lens for it because my EF-S 18-55mm doesn't work well in combination with this camera. When it is set to full-frame (FF), the image quality is reduced to 10 MP. I found several options to address this gap (I already have a 50mm prime and 70-300mm zoom lens):

• Used Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (~309 euros)
• Used Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM (~450 euros)
• Used Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM (~300 euros)

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about these options.

 

[Overread]

Yep the EFS lenses are designed to cast a smaller functional image circle and thus are capped at the 10MP because basically its just using the middle part of the sensor. Now the lens will actually cast a bigger image circle in total ,but the edge details will be far less polished and you would have a higher chance of lots of vignetting happening.

Of the three lenses you have selected I'd leave out the STM as it has a variable aperture which can be a bit of a pain at times. In general terms STM is a great boon if you're doing video work but if you're not doing any video work then you really don't need it.

The 17-40mm is what most would consider a "walk around landscape" lens on a fullframe; whilst the 24-105 is more of a generalist lens that will do a lot of everything. That 17-24mm difference between the two would be noticeable, but it really depends on if its a big issue you for you right now.

It's tricky to test with your current lens as its auto-locking itself to crop mode so the 18mm it shows you will be different to the 18mm that the 17-40mm would look like. But you could still generalise it between if you tend to stick to the short end of your kit lens and always want more in-frame; or if you find yourself at the long end or always wanting less (zooming in more).

 

[dzvolkau]

Yep the EFS lenses are designed to cast a smaller functional image circle and thus are capped at the 10MP because basically its just using the middle part of the sensor. Now the lens will actually cast a bigger image circle in total ,but the edge details will be far less polished and you would have a higher chance of lots of vignetting happening.

Of the three lenses you have selected I'd leave out the STM as it has a variable aperture which can be a bit of a pain at times. In general terms STM is a great boon if you're doing video work but if you're not doing any video work then you really don't need it.

The 17-40mm is what most would consider a "walk around landscape" lens on a fullframe; whilst the 24-105 is more of a generalist lens that will do a lot of everything. That 17-24mm difference between the two would be noticeable, but it really depends on if its a big issue you for you right now.

It's tricky to test with your current lens as its auto-locking itself to crop mode so the 18mm it shows you will be different to the 18mm that the 17-40mm would look like. But you could still generalise it between if you tend to stick to the short end of your kit lens and always want more in-frame; or if you find yourself at the long end or always wanting less (zooming in more).

Thank you for the good advice! I plan to check both of them for image quality and then decide which one meets my expectations.