R6 MK2 vs R6 MK3 for professional family/portrait photographer?

[haymas]

I worked as a professional photographer doing fashion and portraits for the past 15 years, I took a break from working and am planning to get back into the game next year. I used to use a 5D MK3 for my work and was planning to get an R6 MK2, but with the recent launch now I am not sure. The cost of the MK3 is not prohibitive but I can't decide if its worth it to get it over the MK2 although I will be using it for work for awhile. What do you think?

[jrhoffman75]

https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Gear-Guide/EOS-R6-Mark-II-or-Mark-III/td-p/573989

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

For me, the R6 mkIII represents the mirrorless body I always wanted Canon to produce.  A body with 32-36 MP and 4k 60 video capability with no crop.  Some 7 years later here we are.  I would have bought a 5D Mark Five had Canon ever made it.  Even if it had 4k cropped video.  This was the technology available at the time.  I was coming from the 6D mkII that had 26.2 MP.  I wanted more resolution.  My initial impressions of the R5 were good but I didn't need 8K video and the overheating gave me pause.  My view of that body now is completely different. Due to the multiple firmwares that were released I'd own one in a heartbeat today.  It's a great camera. 

The R5 mk II is also a great camera, but it took a small hit because of line skipping at 4k 60.  We all have different needs and use our cameras differently.  So what does or doesn't work for one person doesn't mean right or wrong for you. 

I personally would spend the extra money on the R6 mkIII.  It checks so many of my boxes.  Megapixels and resolution. No line skipping in 4k 60 fine mode.  Full size HDMI, c-log 2, c-log 3.  It records audio in 4k 120 in S&F.  This is not something the R5 or R5 mkII can do. Canon covered the gambit.  The R6 mkIII is sure to be a real home run.  

On paper, both body's can focus and shoot at -6.5 EV. The mkII's IBIS is 8.0 stops while the mkIII's is 8.5. There's also a difference in native vs expanded ISO capability.   The newer sensor and processor in the mkIII is said to handle low light like a champ and also provides enhanced low light video performance when shooting c-log 2.  Credit again to its new sensor and processor.  There's more icing on the cake...  Better rolling shutter performance.  Also the edition of a CFB slot.  These are some of the reasons why I would consider the mkIII over the mkII.  As I said earlier, just because I would doesn't mean it's the right choice for you.  I see it as a better investment.  Let's see what others say. 🚀🤔

[ebiggs1]

"The cost of the MK3 is not prohibitive ..."

If you are truly a pro making a living than the cost vs benefit always comes in to play. Will the R6 Mk III make you more money that the Mk II will? You see this is the big difference between a real working pro and an advanced enthusiasts or hobbyists that make a few dollars with a camera. The gear is more important than the business.

By all means if the money is there go with the newest tech and make it pay. If not go back to the 5D Mk III. You don't need an R6 series "to get back into the game next year."