I have the R6 MK2. I would say, it is worth the upgrade if you take pictures of moving objects; animals, sports, and children's birthdays for instance. Kids are also difficult to shoot because they constantly move all the time and canot stay still. This is due to the high FPS rate on the electronic shutter on the Mk2. That did it for me.
The one thing you failed to mention which improved from the R6 to the R6 MKII is AF. MKII picked up the improvements from the R3 and in fact is better than the R5 which I also have.
Hi from Oz, I'm considering changing systems to the OM-1. I have my trusty 7D & 90D but weight of my "L" series lenses etc are making me think of changing. I watched your video on the OM-1 & was very impressed with the lightweight lenses & size but do not want to regret making the change. In your opinion which is the better camera the OM-1 or the R6 mkII, I realise I would still have the weight issues with the "L" series lenses etc but I could carry on using my tripod or monopod. Obviously its a difficult (& possibly not fair) comparison but I'm not a pro photographer, its just for travel, wildlife & general photography. I've enjoyed your videos & would appreciate your opinion.
Thanks for the comment. If weight is the major factor then go OM-1 all day long. The R6 Mark II is a great camera, but the RF mount does bring challenges - weight and the high price-tag being just two.
Thanks for the comment - I tested the R6 Mark II with a range of both RF and EF lenses and had no issues. The savings on EF glass compared to RF is huge so I'd go for it!
I have the R6 MK2. I would say, it is worth the upgrade if you take pictures of moving objects; animals, sports, and children's birthdays for instance. Kids are also difficult to shoot because they constantly move all the time and canot stay still. This is due to the high FPS rate on the electronic shutter on the Mk2. That did it for me.
I shoot electronic shutter quite a bit and I like the optional sound given to the R6II. I like that feedback when I'm shooting.
I upgraded from an EOS R to the R6ii and it was a no brainer. The larger sensor and the more advanced AF was more than enough to make the sale.
I went from the R6 to the R6 II. I'm satisfied with the move, the weaknesses of the R6 that concerned me were addressed.
The one thing you failed to mention which improved from the R6 to the R6 MKII is AF. MKII picked up the improvements from the R3 and in fact is better than the R5 which I also have.
Hi from Oz, I'm considering changing systems to the OM-1.
I have my trusty 7D & 90D but weight of my "L" series lenses etc are making me think of changing.
I watched your video on the OM-1 & was very impressed with the lightweight lenses & size but do not want to regret making the change.
In your opinion which is the better camera the OM-1 or the R6 mkII, I realise I would still have the weight issues with the "L" series lenses etc but I could carry on using my tripod or monopod.
Obviously its a difficult (& possibly not fair) comparison but I'm not a pro photographer, its just for travel, wildlife & general photography.
I've enjoyed your videos & would appreciate your opinion.
Thanks for the comment. If weight is the major factor then go OM-1 all day long. The R6 Mark II is a great camera, but the RF mount does bring challenges - weight and the high price-tag being just two.
I've just upgraded from r50 to r6 as I'm beginner is this a good choice to gradually move up
I am thinking of buying the eos r6 ii do the ef 24 70 ii and ef 70 200 2.8 ii lenses work well with the eos r6 mark ii thank you very much
Thanks for the comment - I tested the R6 Mark II with a range of both RF and EF lenses and had no issues. The savings on EF glass compared to RF is huge so I'd go for it!
Thankss
Is the original r6 good for UA-cam and instagrams videos?
Yes, I shoot most of the studio video with the R6
Fuck yeah it is