>>4266512>muh crippled!The R8 shoots at 40 fps, 30 fps with pre buffering, does FF 4k60 10-bit 4:2:2 CLog3, has four channel audio, has an articulated screen, and has superior AF. For people who need those features it's the Z6i that's crippled.
>muh Z-lenses!!!Canon is doing so many interesting things in RF mount that it's ridiculous. 24-70 f/2. 24-105 f/2.8. 200-800, cheap 600 and 800 primes, 100-300 zoom, 200-500 zoom, the pancakes, cheap but good 100-400, amazing pro 100-500...from low to high end they are innovating like mad.
>>4266528>I don't see what the R6 II has that the Z5 doesn't and that matters, outside of the swivel screen. Are you kidding? Let's see...
Z5: 4.5 fps, 5 stop IBIS, 1.7x cropped 4k30
R6ii: 12/40 fps, 8 stop IBIS, FF 4k60 + 6k RAW, oh and the R6ii has more controls while the Z5 has an entry level design. The R6ii is basically a pro tool while the Z5 is a FF Rebel.
Now if you don't need anything more than the Z5 offers and you want to be in Z-mount, it's a great camera. But the R6ii is in a different tier entirely.
>Z mount is superior to RF and makes it look like a baby mount in comparison. Hilarious that you use the qualifier "that matters" then mention the most irrelevant possible thing. No one cares about a couple mm's difference in mount size. EF and RF are already huge. The tiny difference here makes no difference in lens design. Hell, even Sony is getting by and E-mount truly is a baby mount designed for aps-c, same size as EF-M.
>The Canon has higher rated stabilization (8 stops vs 5) but my understanding is that it's quite buggy. Canon's IBIS is amazing and yields gimbal like results with video. It also works with OIS so all IS lenses get another 1-2 stops.
>It also has in-camera stacking and MUCH higher FPS (40 vs 4.5) but honestly... do you take a lot of pictures of herons catching fish? 40 fps is pretty extreme but I would take 12 fps over 4.5 fps for any/all sports, wildlife, airshows, etc.
