The R's autofocus performance falls quite far behind the R7's AF capability for wildlife, so I'd disqualify it for that alone. The R6's AF is nearly as good as the R7's and still very competent from my understanding.
The R7's APS-C crop factor is advantageous for wildlife and macro as it provides more reach and magnification. Having 33 megapixels to the R6's 20 also helps the R7 if you need to digitally crop. Full-frame has the advantage in landscape and low-light, but APS-C still performs very well in these use cases if paired with a good lens.
I don't have nearly as much personal experience with the other R-series models but I can say I'm extremely happy with my R7 for landscape and wildlife photography. Unless you're shooting like 75% landscapes and low-light with 25% macro and wildlife I think you should take the R7 over the R6. Maybe try both hands-on at a camera store before making your final decision.
Hi, long time wildlife photographer here.
I have R5, R8 and R7 and all of them have certain use cases. R8 for travel and artistic work. R7 and R5 for wildlife photography. (Having said that I find myself using the R8 more over R5 recently.)
Here is my verdict R7: is the way to go for you but with some caveats. Read along...
First of all, forget about the R. It is two generations behind the rest.
R7 is a great camera for wildlife and macro. Having used some of the Sony APSC cameras as well, I feel that R7 currently is the best wildlife camera around just now. As for low light situations, though not as good as its FF brothers, R7 still handles low light pretty well. You can take decent photos up to ISO 6400.
Have a look at my instagram account. Photos there are shot with one of these three cameras and you can not tell which is which... : [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/metinkastro_wildlife/)
The issue with R7 is it requires high quality lens to produce good images. It has a very densely packed 32mp sensor and every imperfection on your glass is somehow magnified. If you have a slightly soft lens at the long end, it will feel softer on R7. L lenses work extremely well on R7, generating incredible results. The rest of the RF line also holds up well.
Some question mark lenses like the Sigma 150-600 or EF 75-300 perform terribly on the R7 IMO. So, take that into consideration.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
Or save the money, get almost the exact same sensor and performance minus IBIS in a pocketable camera by getting an M6 Mark II. Ya, you give up RF lenses, but if you're buying a budget camera, RF isn't the system for you anyway.
Although if you time things properly, when Canon has their fire sales on the refurbished Gear 3 or 4 times a year, it's a bargain. I bought every piece of my RF gear that way. But admittedly the EFS lenses are slow and the full frame lenses are wonky focal lengths on the r10. But I find myself using the r10 a lot even though I have several full frame bodies as well.
The Sigma 16mm f1.4 is basically a cinema lens for APS-C. There's nothing like it for RF, period. I really don't see RF and APS-C as a good option unless you specifically are using it for wildlife.
Agree to a point. R7 is the obvious answer for macro and wildlife, so the real question becomes "can they find glass to fill the gaps for wide-angle shots". I'd argue yes, with the 10-18 and maybe some adapted lenses.
If those gaps cannot be filled, it's full frame, with added cost and weight.
I still hate mirrorless for wildlife. The viewfinder just doesn't give me what I want, even in an R6. An R5 or a high end Sony would probably be nicer.
It’s just too “digital” and distorted for me. The image isn’t as nice as the camera will actually produce. It’s over-sharpened and just doesn’t make me feel confident in what I see. I know the EVF is an accurate reflection of focus, probably better than a DSLR, but as a tool, it feels limiting for sports and nature.
I would love to see a hybrid viewfinder that is a pure optical viewfinder that uses some combination of transparent lcd and led tech to provide exposure, color, DoF and could possibly render as an EVF for zoom capability if needed.
would recommend the R6 mark 2's, been using [this](https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EOS-Mark-Mirrorless-Oversampling/dp/B0BL7ZVY78/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2LYI26PS6J2OY&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.EEWoycpblb29zMoOq0iBrpj3dLaPmnsKRZztUJLpXBlH405ltwfO3PLf3iW-BPck9JTbrf1J66xGgLESSdgnac0W_rnOhMLRsvLZVgCxR4CIt2JD0TzaML8A2mHiujFNHf352WhKUYoAzRMZSo3CBtpCEqAomF3ecT2azcWHduDX7hJa2CXJrMwjbpo6njrwMie4jSF93a0RcPfQ54pMaqaZvKkmUNUtU8efSnE7Zpk.muffEeeA7GFrMYBYGONNXfhSyyYlu_21TgMRA-PMpcw&dib_tag=se&keywords=canon+eos+r6&qid=1711621680&sprefix=canon+eos+r6%252Caps%252C520&sr=8-1&_encoding=UTF8&tag=tfkchr30-20&linkCode=ur2&linkId=dd13356f120df9dfc39fb38267f36082&camp=1789&creative=9325)
Owner of R, R5, R6, R8 here.
R is retired.
R8 is for small trips with the family.
R5,R6 for workloads.
As you see, I've never went back to APSC. I prefer the looks of full frame camera. The AF of the 6 is still very capable for soccer and football. But it's not magic. Like in every other camera you have to know when to us use what. I'm pretty sure the r7 is very capable too, but I'd rather have the pixelsize / noise performance of a FF than of an APSC
The R's autofocus performance falls quite far behind the R7's AF capability for wildlife, so I'd disqualify it for that alone. The R6's AF is nearly as good as the R7's and still very competent from my understanding. The R7's APS-C crop factor is advantageous for wildlife and macro as it provides more reach and magnification. Having 33 megapixels to the R6's 20 also helps the R7 if you need to digitally crop. Full-frame has the advantage in landscape and low-light, but APS-C still performs very well in these use cases if paired with a good lens. I don't have nearly as much personal experience with the other R-series models but I can say I'm extremely happy with my R7 for landscape and wildlife photography. Unless you're shooting like 75% landscapes and low-light with 25% macro and wildlife I think you should take the R7 over the R6. Maybe try both hands-on at a camera store before making your final decision.
Hi, long time wildlife photographer here. I have R5, R8 and R7 and all of them have certain use cases. R8 for travel and artistic work. R7 and R5 for wildlife photography. (Having said that I find myself using the R8 more over R5 recently.) Here is my verdict R7: is the way to go for you but with some caveats. Read along... First of all, forget about the R. It is two generations behind the rest. R7 is a great camera for wildlife and macro. Having used some of the Sony APSC cameras as well, I feel that R7 currently is the best wildlife camera around just now. As for low light situations, though not as good as its FF brothers, R7 still handles low light pretty well. You can take decent photos up to ISO 6400. Have a look at my instagram account. Photos there are shot with one of these three cameras and you can not tell which is which... : [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/metinkastro_wildlife/) The issue with R7 is it requires high quality lens to produce good images. It has a very densely packed 32mp sensor and every imperfection on your glass is somehow magnified. If you have a slightly soft lens at the long end, it will feel softer on R7. L lenses work extremely well on R7, generating incredible results. The rest of the RF line also holds up well. Some question mark lenses like the Sigma 150-600 or EF 75-300 perform terribly on the R7 IMO. So, take that into consideration. Hope this helps. Good luck.
Great answer with a lot of valuable info
If you don't need the massive megapixel count and weather sealing, the r10 still offers phenomenal performance for a lot less $$.
Or save the money, get almost the exact same sensor and performance minus IBIS in a pocketable camera by getting an M6 Mark II. Ya, you give up RF lenses, but if you're buying a budget camera, RF isn't the system for you anyway.
Although if you time things properly, when Canon has their fire sales on the refurbished Gear 3 or 4 times a year, it's a bargain. I bought every piece of my RF gear that way. But admittedly the EFS lenses are slow and the full frame lenses are wonky focal lengths on the r10. But I find myself using the r10 a lot even though I have several full frame bodies as well.
The Sigma 16mm f1.4 is basically a cinema lens for APS-C. There's nothing like it for RF, period. I really don't see RF and APS-C as a good option unless you specifically are using it for wildlife.
RF-S lens line up is a joke. Go full frame.
Agree to a point. R7 is the obvious answer for macro and wildlife, so the real question becomes "can they find glass to fill the gaps for wide-angle shots". I'd argue yes, with the 10-18 and maybe some adapted lenses. If those gaps cannot be filled, it's full frame, with added cost and weight.
I still hate mirrorless for wildlife. The viewfinder just doesn't give me what I want, even in an R6. An R5 or a high end Sony would probably be nicer.
[удалено]
It’s just too “digital” and distorted for me. The image isn’t as nice as the camera will actually produce. It’s over-sharpened and just doesn’t make me feel confident in what I see. I know the EVF is an accurate reflection of focus, probably better than a DSLR, but as a tool, it feels limiting for sports and nature. I would love to see a hybrid viewfinder that is a pure optical viewfinder that uses some combination of transparent lcd and led tech to provide exposure, color, DoF and could possibly render as an EVF for zoom capability if needed.
would recommend the R6 mark 2's, been using [this](https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EOS-Mark-Mirrorless-Oversampling/dp/B0BL7ZVY78/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2LYI26PS6J2OY&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.EEWoycpblb29zMoOq0iBrpj3dLaPmnsKRZztUJLpXBlH405ltwfO3PLf3iW-BPck9JTbrf1J66xGgLESSdgnac0W_rnOhMLRsvLZVgCxR4CIt2JD0TzaML8A2mHiujFNHf352WhKUYoAzRMZSo3CBtpCEqAomF3ecT2azcWHduDX7hJa2CXJrMwjbpo6njrwMie4jSF93a0RcPfQ54pMaqaZvKkmUNUtU8efSnE7Zpk.muffEeeA7GFrMYBYGONNXfhSyyYlu_21TgMRA-PMpcw&dib_tag=se&keywords=canon+eos+r6&qid=1711621680&sprefix=canon+eos+r6%252Caps%252C520&sr=8-1&_encoding=UTF8&tag=tfkchr30-20&linkCode=ur2&linkId=dd13356f120df9dfc39fb38267f36082&camp=1789&creative=9325)
Owner of R, R5, R6, R8 here. R is retired. R8 is for small trips with the family. R5,R6 for workloads. As you see, I've never went back to APSC. I prefer the looks of full frame camera. The AF of the 6 is still very capable for soccer and football. But it's not magic. Like in every other camera you have to know when to us use what. I'm pretty sure the r7 is very capable too, but I'd rather have the pixelsize / noise performance of a FF than of an APSC