Mike Holmes Loc: The Villages Fl

This may not be the most appropriate section for this question but in my opinion it is the section which gets the widest exposure. I currently us a canon 90d and primarily shot wildlife with a canon 100-400 L II lens with occasionally a 1.4 extender. I am interested in switching to full frame mirror-less and the new R6 appears to meet almost all of my requirements. I never shoot video and will be adding a walk around lens and the new RF lenses appear to be very good. My question is will the lower resolution of the R6 have a negative effect on my images, assuming I never print images larger then 16x20? I realize that there are not a lot of R6's out there but if I am going to make the transmission the sooner I sell my current equipment and upgrade the better.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Just my opinion of course. If the 90d meets all your requirements, and you never print large, Full frame won't make your images any better.Nor, for that .matter neither will mirrorless. I would spend the money on glass. ut if you wnt to keep the 90d as a back up body, thats a whole nother question.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

You would be going from 33mp to 20mp sensor. If you do significant cropping then yes it would make a huge difference. Otherwise, not. Many times the birds that I shoot are very far from me & I cannot get closer - so, high mp really makes a difference for me.
For landscapes and portraits my old 12mp camera is fine.

bleirer

Interesting review here. Looks like a great camera on paper. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R6.aspx


At 5472x3648 pixels you'd be able to print 18 inches by 12 inches and still have 300 pixels per inch on the print. At 240 pixels per inch you get 22 inches by 15. So don't crop too much. Plus resampling software is getting better if you want to print larger.

The r5 would certainly be plenty of pixels, but you have to spend a lot more.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

See Elliott's comment above (ecobin). A camera at 20MP is excellent for images printed to the size of a 2-page magazine spread. This is why the 1D series cameras are in the 20MP range as well as Nikon's pro-level cameras. By adjusting the pixels per inch down from 300ppi, larger prints of still excellent quality can be achieved.

But, how far you can 'crop into' an image is limited by the pixel resolution. If you can fill the frame today with your extended 100-400L, working with a lower resolution full frame camera will not be that limiting. But, if you're shooting small, far away subjects and then using your digital editor to harvest screen-filling digital images, you may be very disappointed in losing the 1.6 crop factor along with the pixel resolution.

You might consider renting an EOS R6 for a long weekend / week to get a feel for the differences before making any destructive changes to your equipment profile.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

20mp is plenty - that is "all" Nikon D500 shooters have to work with, and they seem plenty happy,
but do you really need to sell you 90D to afford a new camera?
I would keep it as a back up.

User ID

You might wanna reread the original question. Needs an alternate set of uhh pat answers. OP already understands what he’s doing.

Mike Holmes Loc: The Villages Fl

As always much food for thought. The only way to know for sure is to rent one for a week. Thanks everyone for your input!!!!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Between the 90D and R6, since you have the higher resolution 90D already, I would stick with the 90D. Remember you lose reach with the R6, 400mm vs 640mm R6 vs 90D.
What does the R6 have the 90D does not, except lower resolution and a faster frame rate?

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Go BIG or go HOME is my motto. The R6 is not a huge improvement over the 90D. As others have said, the crop sensor and higher megapixels of the 90D may actually benefit you. If you are going to replace a body go big with the R5. Now you're talking.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

May be the way Canon is going in the future. Perhaps this where Canon may progress in the fututure.

Certain features - such as focus peaking - may be available in EVF but not OVF.

Perhaps lighter, depending on which lenses are preferred.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

The OP already has the 90D.
ALL their lenses work 100% with the RF mount so ALL EF and EF-S lenses are already future proof, unlike Nikon.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

But, if you want to maximize the idea of changing, you'll dump all your legacy DSLR lenses and go completely mirrorless. Nikon's Z-mount lenses are clearly superior to all the F-mounts as are Canon's phenomenal RF lenses.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

In my opinion, FOR WHAT YOU SHOOT... the R6 or even the R5 would be a mistake.

The AF systems of both cameras appears amazing and would be great for wildlife. I'd love to have them for that and sports. BUT, I won't be buying one.

I'll stick with my APS-C cameras for sports & wildlife. Like your 90D, my cameras "leverage" telephoto lenses, which are the bread & butter of sports/wildlife shooters. I'd rather carry around a $1200, 3 lb., 10 inch long EF 300mm f/4L IS USM than get out $9000, 8 lb., 18 inch long EF 500mm f/4L IS USM just to be able to use a full frame camera! I can shoot all day with the 3 lb. lens... while the 8 pounder means using a tripod and gimbal head much of the time.

So, why not just crop the full frame image? Well, in your case even the 45MP R5 would come up short... right now with 90D you can put 32.5MP on an APS-C format image. If you were to trim down an R5's image to APS-C format, you'll be left with about 18MP. It would be even worse with the 20MP R6... cropped to match an APS-C image you'll end up with about 8MP!

Yes, there are the new and very affordable 600mm and 800mm lenses coming soon for the RF mount... but they're f/11! Three stops slower than my 300mm f/4! Three stops less background blur effect! Four stops less than my EF 300mm f/2.8 (which is large & heavy enough that I don't use it nearly as much as the f/4 version).

No thanks, Canon! I'll be waiting to see if the EOS M5 "Mark II" gets an AF system equal to the R6 and R5... and a sensor between 24MP and 32.5MP. If you also enable it to be fitted with a vertical battery grip and/or use the larger LP-E6NH batteries for a lot more shots per charge... well, THAT will be a great sports/wildlife camera, even if I have to adapt EF and EF-S lenses because in eight years you'd made fewer EF-M lenses for the M-series cameras than you've made for the R-series mirrorless in under two years.

The alternative would be to develop an APS-C variant of the R-series. THAT with the new RF 100-500mm would be the basis for a potent sports/wildlife kit! But that would no doubt also be the first step to abandoning the M-series.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Depends on how much money one has.
Many of us will need to change as we have the money including the sale of our lenses, some of which are old. The RF replacement would still be expensive even selling the older lenses.
That is why Canon is so phenomenal in that ALL your AF lenses allow for the transition with NO loss of operability no matter how old unlike Nikon.