>>4380502IMHO you should decide between the R6 and the R7.
>but R8An extra 4mp and a faster e-shutter fps isn't worth giving up IBIS when the R6 can already do 12/20 fps. IMHO you also don't want to give up a full mech shutter. The appeal of the R8 is size (which isn't that much of a difference) and longer 4k recording time before thermal limit. The R6 is better built and sealed, with better ergonomics, a full mech shutter, a real battery, dual card slots, and oh yeah...industry leading IBIS. R6 is also a bit cleaner at the top ISOs (51k, 102k) which doesn't matter for most but is there.
>R7Decent advantage for macro and a small advantage for landscapes (32mp compromised somewhat by being apsc). R6 will clobber it on astro or any lower light landscape. And unless you're printing your landscapes larger than 16x24, you've got plenty of megapickles already on the R6.
Having said that, the real difference in astro is having a mount that can handle multi-minute subs. A mount like that trumps your camera choice. I don't have one yet, I'm limited to 8-15s subs. But here's the thing: with the R6 I can produce in a single frame what used to take multiple subs, picrel. I've got another shot very much like this but it required several minutes worth of 8-10s subs. This is ONE 8s frame. It's not just how high you can push the ISO, it's how much you can do with the RAW file afterwards. So even if you get an expensive, pro astro mount capable of 10 minute subs, the R6 will do more with less total integration time.
IMHO the real deciding factor on R8 vs R6 is the 4k thermal limit. If you're primarily doing video on a gimbal or tripod, the R8 can record longer. But Canon's IBIS is huge for video so if you're doing hand held, you're back to the R6. R7 is a great camera but mainly for reach in birding and sports. And yes, that helps with macro too.
Personally, I would go R6. I can kind of understand if you go R7. But R8 doesn't make sense, go R6 if you want FF.
