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 R6 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.