Reccomendations on a mirrorless camera for wildlife photography

[Sirius]

I am seriously over due for an upgrade and a little overwhelmed with trying to make a decision. 

A while back I got my wife a Rebel T7 and I ended up being the one using it most. I really got it to wildlife photography and have been able to do quite a lot with this camera and a sigma contemporary 150-600mm lens. But I feel I've hit the ceiling with this body and know I need to upgrade. 

So I'm looking for guidance. I'd say 80% of what I shoot is wildlife, mostly mammals and raptors. The other 20% is landscape and astrophotography. I never cared much about landscape photography but one trip to Iceland was all it took to make me start. Since then I've been traveling a lot more and doing more landscape. 

So I'm looking for a mirrorless camera and I'm prepared to spend $3,500 on a body. I'd like something best for wildlife photography, especially for shooting in lower light and shooting birds in flight. But I'd also like it to be good for landscape. Something also good for making prints, and preferably something as close to weatherproof as I can get. Also, I need to be able to use an adapter so I can continue using my Sigma until I can upgrade lenses. 

I've been looking primarily at the R6 MarkII and the R5, but I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks!

[stevet1]

Sirius,

A company or a website called Camera Decision has an article relevant to your issue.

Do  a Google search for:

Best Canon Mirrorless Cameras with Weather Sealing . They rank 9 of them, I think.

Several of the cameras you mentioned are listed.

Steve Thomas

[Waddizzle]

Canon R6 mark II

[Sirius]

Any reason in particular you suggest the R6 mark II? 

[March411]

Hey Sirius, welcome to the site.

I have both the R6 Mk II and the R5 and I would have to agree with Waddizzle, the R6 Mk II would be the way to go given you want to shoot low light. You can't really go wrong with either camera but I personally have found the R6 at higher ISO simply produces better IQ. As you stated you want to shoot in low light situations that would be my first choice.

With that being said there is software that can help with high ISO noise like DXO or Topaz if you want the higher MP of the R5. 

This is an image from my R6 Mk II with low light. So work was done in post.

 

[Aurora4233]

If you're truly centering on wildlife I'd recommend the R7.  It's my go-to for airshow, birds, wildlife, and any distance work.  The APS-C and remarkable pixel density are an unbelievable combination for distance work in reasonable light.  I definitely break out the R6mII for any sort of low light, portrait, indoor, or wide angle work, but don't let any APS-C stigma keep you from looking at the R7 for what you're hoping to do.  It is inexpensive enough you could grab it and the insane RF 100-500 for just a touch over your budget.

Cannot go wrong with an R5 or R6mII but if you're serious about distance work the R7 has rewarded me consistently.

** I've attached some pics that were all R7 paired with the RF 100-500 at an airshow and I would have had to crop into these with my R6mII but the 1.6 multiplier on an APC-S does all the distance work for me.  We used the full frames for the indoor shots but the R7 is a performer and shouldn't be written off for being a crop sensor.

~Chris

[Sirius]

Honestly this has been a hard decision I'm not fully set on, sticking with full frame or switching.

Even with a 600mm, yeah the extra distance is always nice. Most of the time I'm good but there have been quite a few instances where I would have loved that little extra push. 

Having said that, I have been doing a lot more landscape and astrophotography and want to get in to it a lot more. Honestly if I was shooting exclusively wildlife, I'd go for something like the r7. But I'm worried I'll get it and end up regretting the aps-c as I do more landscape.

Ugh, I suck at making decisions like this. 

[Tronhard]

Hi and welcome to the forum:

As a retired wildlife photographer myself, I use both the R6 series and the R5. When I used DSLRs I used crop-sensor bodies as well as the Full-frame ones, but I absolutely prefer the FF sensors of the R-series bodies, so I agree with your direction.

For deciding between the R5 and R6II, much depends on what you are going to produce.  Since you say you are going to create prints, it is critical to know how big those prints are required to be. 
See: Relating Resolution to Print Size 
Looking at the relative resolutions of the R6II and R5 will give you the values you need: source DPReview.com.  Rather than looking at MP size, I am using sensor resolution.

Translating that back into the table we get:

So, the decision on sensor size is yours depending on what size prints you want to produce and to what quality.

The decision of sensor size is not an insignificant one, and it impacts on how the sensor interacts with the lenses attached to produce what the camera records.  To get the full story on this, I recommend you read the following in-depth discussion on:  Equivalence: Relating Sensor Size and Lens Focal Length to Field of View 

I have used the Sigma 150-600c on both the R5 and R6 with no issues whatsoever: for some examples of this see:
Testing the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary with the Ca... - Page 2 - Canon Community  EOS R5

Sigma 150-600c on a trip to the zoo - Canon Community  EOS R6
The R6II is even better, but I no longer have the Sigma 150-600c, but can offer some shots with the Sigma 60-600s, which is similar: Sigma 60-600 with EOS R6MkII - Canon Community 

Particularly for low light work where a FF sensor has advantages because generally they have larger photosites - definitely in the case of the current R-models, and because a crop-sensor reduces the field of view at wide angles that are useful for scenery, I definitely go with the full-frame camera.

[Sirius]

Thank you for your detailed response and DM. After everything I've read and watched, this is where I'm at. 

All my concerns about both cameras have been addressed, but I'm hung up on two things. 

1. AF and continous shooting. Some people say they are comparable, some have said the autofocus speed, tracking and continous shooting is noticeably better in the r6 markII.

2. Lower light shooting. Specifically hearing the r5 is not as good in lower light and high iso as the r6. 

I'm leaning towards the r5. I'm fine spending the extra money for the extra MP and since I heard they are announcing the r5 II tomorrow, I'd be OK to wait for the release in the hopes of a price drop on the 5. 

But a lot of shooting I do relies on faster focus, and being able to get shots during dusk and dawn in lower light without adding too much noise. Honestly, it seems like while the r6 is better for lower light, the r5 still gets the job done pretty well and whatever noise I have from the r5 that I wouldn't have from the r6, can be taken care of in post. More or less canceling this concern out. 

Wondering what your thoughts are.

[Tronhard]

What I said about how big a print you can make is not negotiable.  So, if you want the big prints you need the big capacity sensor.   So, with that thought in mind, let's look at the focusing issue...

Focus:
The term fast focusing is a relative one and it's not all about the camera.  The R5 focuses extremely fast - certainly much, much faster than a T7, but acquiring focus is also a function of the lens.  For example, the RF 100-500L has dual nano-USM motors that make it lightning fast to focus.  None of the other Canon super tele zooms have that dual-nano USM feature, yet the RF 200-800 is fast too with its single nano USM motor and offers a unique focal range.   From experience, I can attest that both those lenses will  focus more quickly than the Sigma 150-600c using an EF-RF adapter.  So, have you considered the implications of the body and lens ?

Much also depends on your focusing and exposure settings.  I shoot single point centre focus with animal eye and face tracking, and single point exposure centred - both using back buttons.
So, I locate a mid-tonal point and lock exposure with the * button
Then locate the eye of the animal in the centre, lock focus and then the system tracks it
Recompose and take the shot.
It sounds much more long-winded than it is to execute but it makes the focusing system as fast as possible.

Dynamic Range:
Yes, the R6 and R6II are better by about 1 stop in low light, relative to the R5, but the R5 has excellent ISO performance in its own right.  I wonder what ISO values you shoot at currently...   I shoot in the dim light of NZ bush, which is like shooting at dusk all the time and many of the birds flit around like mad, so yes, focus and low light performance are issues I have to deal with.  Given we have ISO, aperture and shutter speed to play with, I keep my apertures close to open, and practise shooting carefully hand-held if shooting birds on the wing, or flitting.  One can also improve noise levels with post production software that makes a significant difference.

If you want to look at the performance of the RF lenses then check out some sample images I have shot.
First Shots with the RF 200-800 and the R6II - Page 2 - Canon Community
Shooting with the Rf 200-800 and R6 - Page 2 - Canon Community
Which is Which? - Page 3 - Canon Community R5 (cropped) and RF 100-500 vs R6 with RF 200-800
Testing the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary with the Ca... - Page 2 - Canon Community  R5
A Few Shots with the R5 and RF 200-800 - Canon Community

FWIW, I enclose a link to a detailed reviewed by Gordon Liang of Cameralabs.com.  This is of an early release camera, so it has only got better in many respects.