burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

My Mom used to look at me in 1969 when I bought my first good camera (Nikkormat FTn) and say, "Do you know how many starving children in Africa you could feed with the money you spent on that?" She said it tongue in cheek, but with a grain of seriousness.

Few people NEED the top end of any product line... I'll give them a break if they really do, provided they really know how to use it. But...

I remember a friend's father who was very well to do. When he died, she and her Mom found two big camera bags in the front hall closet. They held two mint-condition Nikon F2s with meter finders, plus six fast prime lenses and a top-end Honeywell Strobonar flash. There was a small bag of expired film in the side pocket, with a receipt for both the equipment and the film. Each camera had half of his first rolls of film in it.

Not even his wife knew he had the gear! He never really used it. He also owned a mint-condition 1963 Corvette with under 10,000 miles on it... when he died in the late 1970s. The tires were flat and rotten. He was one of those guys who had to have the best, even if he never or seldom used it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When I was just a little boy, my parents used to take me to the camera store. I wanted to see the cameras. Such amazing designs, such amazing lenses, such amazing prices. My father would buy a new camera every few years even though his pictures where never really very good. He was always reading the DXO sharpness charts and discussing the micron size of the pixels. His images were hardly ever in focus. After he passed I was going through his things. I fear he read on UHH that equipment is what matters most and as he grew older, he never could free himself from this thought.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Although I agree that there are a few people that are actually stupid, I prefer to hope that most are just ignorant and may come to use what God has given them.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

Did you ask her to name one.?

sennamonster Loc: fort wayne, IN

For what it's worth, I have stayed with my 7D. I think mirrorless is just a way to make money until the next new thing(and who knows what that will be.)

Capn_Dave

First off why don't you look at reviews? A blind hog can find an acorn once in awhile I have photos taken with a Canon T3i, and my really old DSC-F88 Cyber Shot with 5mp. . If you would like some comparisons just google comparisons. Why in the world would anyone that has a small fortune in a brands lenses switch brands when there is no need. I can list numerous reason why the Sony is in second place. Check out Ken Rockwell, Tony Northrup, and other reviews.
This from DP review https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4511165
Another review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZuG-GYLKU

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

No. I remember rolling my eyes and walking back into my makeshift darkroom.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

You could as easily have titled the thread "The Future or the Past".

I changed to mirrorless in 2013 and would NEVER go back to a DSLR!

bwa

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Being that you say you researched both Rs, I would venture to say, you have no compelling reason to move to another brand.

I rented the R5 along with the RF/EF adapter so that I could use my lenses on the R5. I LOVED the camera and have put in an order for one. Seems everyone has them on back order right now - even Canon!

If you have the money, I would say go with the R5 but, that's a decision you have to make. At this time, I am shying away from Canon's RF lens line and will wait until more reviews come out.

Good Luck with your decision.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Well, the original poster is named Barb... so I'm guessing she's not a man.

The mirrorless vs DSLR debate has raged for years. Both types of interchangeable lens cameras (ILC) have improved and each have their pluses and minuses. Today sales of both types of ILC are about 50/50... half of what people are buying are mirrorless, while the other half are still DSLRs. What this means is that mirrorless have in a very short time become an equal part of the marketplace alongside DSLRs, which have been around a lot longer and were a more natural transition from popular film cameras. In eight or ten years, mirrorless have become very popular and use a lot of "new tech", with some of it carried over from digital cinema cameras. DSLRs are very largely based upon tried, true and well-proven film SLRs that were developed over the last 70 years or so, and most closely upon the autofocus SLRs from the 1980s onward.

Barb, whether or not you should switch from DSLR to mirrorless very much depends upon what you shoot and how you shoot it. Due to their popularity and "cutting edge" tech, mirrorless cameras and lenses are usually, but not always more expensive than the most comparable DSLR cameras and lenses.

Canon R6 (20MP)... $2500. Canon 6D II (26MP)... $1400. Canon RP (26MP)... $1000.
Canon R5 (45MP)... $3800. Canon 5Ds-R (50MP)... $1500.
Canon 5D IV (30MP)... $2500. Canon R (30MP)... $1800.

Note that the R5 and R6 both have Canon's latest and greatest AF system, some even say the best AF of any camera system. But, do you need it? Maybe yes if you shoot active subjects such as sports or wildlife. But maybe no if you shoot less active subjects such as landscapes, portraits and most macro. (By the way, the DSLRs have pretty darned good AF systems, too. So do the Canon R and RP.)

Then there are lenses... Currently Canon has a catalog of about 60 full frame EF lenses for DSLRs. In comparison, now just over two years into the R-system mirrorless, they have about 15 native RF lenses for those cameras. There are pretty strong rumors of another 15 or 16 RF lenses coming this year, though. Plus you can adapt EF lenses for use on RF cameras, where the EF lenses perform almost as well as the native lenses for the new system. Of course, when you adapt a lens you don't see any savings of size and weight... in fact you increase them a little.

When it comes to price, there's always a significant cost changing systems (which is what you'd be doing, even though both are Canon). It's not uncommon for mirrorless lenses to cost more than their DSLR counterparts. But it's not always the case.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM II and Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM both sell for the same $1100.
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM costs $599. Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM sells for $499.
Note: The RF 35mm is a macro capable lens, while the EF lens is not.
However, the RF lens uses STM focus drive, while the EF lens uses USM.

On the other hand:

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM... $2300. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II... $1900.
Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM... $2300. Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM III... $2200.
Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS STM... $599. Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM... $419.
The above RF lenses are actually slightly heavier than their EF counterparts.
However, also note that the RF lenses have IS, while the EF lenses do not.

Canon RF 100-500mm L IS USM... $2700. Canon EF 100-400mm L IS USM II... $2400.
In this case, the RF lens offers an add'l 100mm, yet is lighter than the EF lens.
Interesting... the EF lens uses 1 fluorite and 1 Super UD element, while the RF lens uses 1 Super UD and 6 UD elements. Yet they have very similar, excellent image quality.

Size and weight savings are one of the key reasons many people buy into mirrorless systems. You'll see no help from the camera body going from a Canon 6D II to an R5 or R6 mirrorless camera. In fact, the R5 weighs a little more than the 6DII. The R6 and 6DII are nearly identical weight. It also depends to some extent on what you shoot and how you shoot it. If you are an event or sports shooter that makes a high volume of images.... possibly even thousands in day.... mirrorless cameras are nowhere near as power-efficient as DSLRs. Because of their electronic viewfinder (EVF), which is handy and helpful in some ways, mirrorless don't get nearly as many shots per battery charge. While most people usually get more from either type of camera, the R5 and R6 are rated to give around 320 shots while using the EVF. In comparison, you can expect upwards of 1000 shots using the optical viewfinder (OVF) of your 6D II. This is using the same LP-E6-series batteries, too. In fact, the two mirrorless utilize a new LP-E6N"H" version of that battery with approx. 15% higher capacity (which is also backward compatible for use in 6DII). Your LP-E6N battery(ies) will work in the R5 and R6, but they will not be able to shoot at their top speeds with those. So if you shoot a lot of images in a day (and the fast frame rates of the mirrorless cameras encourage that), with the mirrorless you will potentially need to carry 3X as many batteries. Those will add weight to your kit, of course. Plus you'll need to pause shooting to swap batteries more often. Oh, and the new LP-E6N"H" are also a little higher priced than the previous battery.

You may need memory card upgrades, too. If you shoot a lot and shoot it fast, the SD memory cards you have for your 6D II may or may not be up to the task. That camera is "UHS I" capable and has a single memory card slot. The R6 has dual SD memory card slots and is able to take advantage of the faster UHS II cards. The R5 also has dual slots, but only one is SD UHS II, the other is the new CFexpress Type B memory, which is faster and bigger, but also much more expensive. Depending upon your use of the camera, you may need an upgrade.

Not trying to say "don't do it". There are a lot of possible good reasons to make the switch from DSLR to mirrorless, too. The R5 and R6 share a fantastic AF system that makes any and all DSLR AF systems look inadequate. If you shoot people and critter action, that would be a big benefit. But if you shoot still life and scenery, they would work fine, but the mirrorless' AF would have little advantage. Other things, though, such as exposure preview or the electronic level that can be seen in the mirrorless camera's EVF may be beneficial to more sedentary types of shooting. So I'm not saying mirrorless don't have some advantages. In fact, they do. But there are some myths about them and they also have some drawbacks and I'm trying to point out some of the realities.

Ultimately, only you can say if the switch from a 6DII to an R6 or R5 would be of any benefit to you. Do plenty of research and comparison.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

The OP DID say they "researched BOTH" so, don't you think "First off why don't you look at reviews? A blind hog can find an acorn once in awhile " is a bit harsh?

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

Do I really need to say this again?

The grass is always greener with Fujichrome.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Well, now, that's a helpful, insightful response, and not in the least bit condescending, disrespectful, or inaccurate - NOT!

hgrangentsr

I have the 5d mk 4 and I purchased r5, the images are sharper in contrast to the mk 4; I really like this camera

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Interesting observations. I've only just begun to seriously consider going mirrorless via Nikon (I'm a died-in-the-wool Nikon gal), and two of your observations as to the con's of mirrorless are what most concern me. I've been doing lots of on-line research, and those are the 2 negatives that keep pulling me back. I understand there is a black-out period between shots, and I think that that would be problematic for me since my main subjects are wildlife, birds, and BIF. I couple of weeks, I'll be out on a workshop with an award-winning professional wildlife photographer who has very recently switched to mirrorless (the Nikon Z6 ii, I believe), and he has kindly offered to swap my D500 for his mirrorless so I can get some hands-on with him by my side to walk/talk me through my concerns.