Do you agree that the M6 EOS Mirrorless is better than the R? (1 Viewer)

[Arbu]

I need a new Canon body, and clearly mirrorless is now the way to go. I was going to get the R, but came across the M6 EOS which this article suggests is better. Do people here agree? Bird photography is important to me and I have an EF 100-400mm lens which, if I understand correctly, can be attached directly to the M6, but needs an adaptor with the R. But also I do quite a bit of hiking so the lower weight of the M6 is an attraction.

Any comments?

Edit: It seems like Mark II is quite an improvement on Mark I so I should get Mark II.

 

[Arbu]

Ah, no, it seems I need an EF to EOS M Mount Adaptor for the M6.

 

[Arbu]

It will be a bit strange taking photos from the screen on the back rather than a viewfinder, but I don't see much reason not to do this, assuming the display is bright enough. And I see you can buy an electronic viewfinder to stick on the top if you want one.

 

[njlarsen]

Not a canon user, but I would never go for a long lens on a camera without a viewfinder. I think both finding the bird and holding the camera still (if needed due to poor light) will be very difficult in that situation.

I was in that situation many years ago on my nikon coolpic 4500 with an extender. I was so happy moving to a bridge camera with a viewfinder.

If you are seriously thinking that the M5/6 with a canon lens is too heavy, then it might be time to move to a micro4/3 system or the sony Rx10 mk IV

Niels

 

[Arbu]

Not a canon user, but I would never go for a long lens on a camera without a viewfinder. I think both finding the bird and holding the camera still (if needed due to poor light) will be very difficult in that situation.

I was in that situation many years ago on my nikon coolpic 4500 with an extender. I was so happy moving to a bridge camera with a viewfinder.

If you are seriously thinking that the M5/6 with a canon lens is too heavy, then it might be time to move to a micro4/3 system or the sony Rx10 mk IV

Niels

Yes, I suppose holding it against your face does help provide stability. But as I say, I can always get the viewfinder if I find this is a problem.

Any reduction in weight is beneficial, but I already have the Canon EF 100-400mm lens which is most of the weight. I think that probably means I need to stay with Canon doesn't it?

 

[njlarsen]

Yes, I suppose holding it against your face does help provide stability. But as I say, I can always get the viewfinder if I find this is a problem.

Any reduction in weight is beneficial, but I already have the Canon EF 100-400mm lens which is most of the weight. I think that probably means I need to stay with Canon doesn't it?

Depends on what you can get if selling your current lens. If you do stay with canon and choose the R camera, then I read that the native lenses weigh less, for a future weight reduction (that still demands you sell the old lens. You will likely get more for the lens now, though.

Niels

 

[Arbu]

Ah, there's also the EOS RP which does have a viewfinder, and doesn't weigh or cost much more than the Mark II.

 

[pdwinter]

Ah, there's also the EOS RP which does have a viewfinder, and doesn't weigh or cost much more than the Mark II.

I have just bought a secondhand EOS RP for (mostly insects) macro photography and it is light but the downside is that insects are smaller than with my 1.6 crop factor canon bodies! However the ability to use ISO 3200 is an immense bonus. It's max shooting rate is only 5 frames per second but as I don't do any meaningful bird photography or even insects in flight that is not an issue for me.

How you would get on with the 100-400 on a full frame camera for bird photography I don't know - but I'm sure someone else here will know.

 

[stevo]

Eos m6 mk1 has been discontinued & been replaced by the m6 mk2.The mk2 which I have is not good for tracking birds.I use the canon viewfinder on mine which screws into the hotshoe & would not be without it.The camera is great for macro but not for birds,it's not responsive enough.