I know there have been tons of comparisons etc between these two but i have started to see used R5 for around 400-600 more than a new R6 m2. I was wanting to upgrade my aging 7d mk 2 to mirrorless full frame. I shoot landscape and travel mostly now and don’t shoot as much sports as I used to. I had pretty much decided on the R6 Mk ii with the rf24-105 f4 and the rf100-400. Then I started to see used R5s for about 300-600 more than new R6 Mk ii. In have read many of the reviews and comparisons of both that were written when the price spread was 1200. I also realize the R5 has been around a while and the R5 Mk ii may drop in the next year. But I have never had a full frame body and given the closer price spread between them now, is it worth going for the R5 and 45MP over the r6 ii?
Landscape can benefit from the extra detail. The R6mk2's improved AF won't matter for non-sports use. I've shot the R5 and R6 side by side and the pixel difference isn't as dramatic as the number implies. The gap between the R6mk2 and R5 is even a little less. Either camera will be an excellent choice. I wouldn't rule out the R6 either if you want to save a few bucks going used.
Everything benefits from extra detail if it matters. The 20MP Canon 1.6x croppers have very close to the same pixel density as the 50MP 5DsR. 45MP is lower than that, but only a little. You won't get as much reach with only 24MP on FF compared to the 7D II and 100-400 IS II. The 100-400 IS II works very well on the R5 and AF covers the whole frame.
I opted for the R5 after first trying the R6II and paying the extra grand for the new R5. I don't rely on the animal AF enough to be sophisticated in that department and the R5's AF works just fine for my needs. I like being able to switch between tracking and non-tracking with servo by choosing different AF methods. This works differently in the R6II and others should weigh in on this difference.
Upgrading from a 30 MP 5D4 and after using the 32 MP R7, 24 MP felt a bit anemic. Fun fact, a 1.6 crop of my R5's 45 MP is exactly the width of my 5K display. I've used this capability with a number of my RF lenses including the ones you mention with great success. It also means I can use adapted EF-S lenses and have a decent sized image to work with. I found the image quality from both FF Rs to be excellent and a nice upgrade from your 7D2.
A downside for the R5 is that you'll need to buy an expensive CF express card. I bought only one and use it only for video and backup space. The fast SD cards have suited all my stills needs do far. You'll probably need a couple of extra batteries as the R5 goes through them faster than the R6II. I only carried one spare for my 5D4, now I carry two. Everyone's milage varies here.
I think either camera will be a nice FF upgrade and the RF 100-400 is a much easier travel companion than the still excellent EF 100-400. The RF 16 works as an ultra wide and can be easily cropped to cover up to 24 mm with the R5. With either body, be prepared to spend some time learning the new controls and especially the dizzying customization options. Enjoy whichever you go for!
Using RP (26Mp), R7 (32) and R5 (45), I would say that if you really like to dive into pixel rich images, I do, the R5 is a real level above the rest. But, there is always a butt, to harvest clean pixels when there are many, you have to up your shooting technique. Be steadier, faster times, higher ISO, perhaps not by much. But unless you do your part, you wont benefit from the extra loads of pixels. Heat shimmer will be more disturbing with higher pixel count sensors.
So unless you really want all those 45 megapixels the R6II is the best. But you will only have about 68% of the reach of the 7DII. The 400mm you are used to (on crop) will only be a 273mm FF accounting for the slightly higher pixel count of the R6II.
You will not find the 400mm much shorter on the R5 than on the 7DII corresponding to 374mm correcting for both linear pixel count and crop factor.
Do you expect to revisit, view, or display the images you are taking now in a few years from now? How about 5-10 years from now? If yes, then the R5 for sure.
People who say 24MP is enough might be right for their present day use but they aren't considering the times ahead. I'll be the first to admit I was recently a die hard Canon "20MP is plenty" fan UNTIL I played with my images on a 6k monitor. I originally bought 2 canon R6's instead of two R5's with the mindset that "20MP is plenty". I do not crop, so why would I need more? Then came the 6k monitors...that will change your mind very quickly.
This hasn't been discussed much yet because most people don't have 6k monitors or 8k picture frame digital wall displays yet, but they are coming. Then comes 16K in the following years and so on. If you know you are the tech type who'll want to revisit our images in high resolution in the future, then the resolution of your current day camera should be a priority.
As for the feature differences between the R5 and R6II, unless you are doing some very specific type of birding photography or similar, you would not notice the difference in AF between these two cameras.
TroPhoto wrote:
I know there have been tons of comparisons etc between these two but i have started to see used R5 for around 400-600 more than a new R6 m2. I was wanting to upgrade my aging 7d mk 2 to mirrorless full frame. I shoot landscape and travel mostly now and don’t shoot as much sports as I used to. I had pretty much decided on the R6 Mk ii with the rf24-105 f4 and the rf100-400. Then I started to see used R5s for about 300-600 more than new R6 Mk ii. In have read many of the reviews and comparisons of both that were written when the price spread was 1200. I also realize the R5 has been around a while and the R5 Mk ii may drop in the next year. But I have never had a full frame body and given the closer price spread between them now, is it worth going for the R5 and 45MP over the r6 ii? ...Show more →
IMHO, it's not going to be worth it if you plan to use it with the 24-105 and 100-400. Get the R5 if you see yourself pairing it with canon's high end L series primes in the future. There is no point in cropping an image from zoom lenses that typically have some CA somewhere in the zoom range and don't resolve as well across the entire frame. Cropping is best reserved for high resolving primes (just my opinion).
I started with the R7 and added an R5 to go with it. I just lost a bunch of money selling the R5 and buying the R6m2. If all you do is landscape and general photography I expect you will be happier with the R5. If you do any birds, action, sports you will find R6m2 has better autofocus and tracking. If I didn't have the R7 before the R5 I think I would have been very happy with it, but starting with the newer camera made the R5 "feel" old. The R6m2 feels at home to me and had better ISO performance than the R7 or the R5. Not that with DXO/Topaz ISO performance matters as much any more. All the R5 gave me was a heavier camera. The R7 and R6m2 are both 5oz lighter than the R5.
Again if all you care about is static subjects, I expect you will be happier with the R5. If you shoot a mix of everything including some action the R6m2 is newer and more advanced but less MP. I'm still in the honeymoon period with my R6m2 as it's been less than a week, but like it better than I ever liked the R5.
I really appreciate everyone’s thoughtful replies. All are excellent food for thought.
If I shoot moving subjects it will be my son’s youth soccer matches so that is not a major concern.
My image output will Be printed and on monitor. I had not considered 6k Monitors and how it would look but now I am and it’s a factor as I do like going back into “history “ it’s why started shooting in the first place back when my dad gave me his old AE-1.
I thought about the R8 but I’m conflicted because I like the idea of IBIS.
I guess what I’m really trying to decide is that all things being equal (ie price approaching not being an issue) if the “care and feeding” of 45mp is worth it or something I’ll regret not having.
I think you answered your own question. If these photos are of your young kids and you want them to last a lifetime, and you think your kids might take-up photography some day, then they'll have some nice files to play with when they get older. Unlike most of us who might be lucky to have a few 4x6 faded prints of our youth that are stuck in a photo album with adhesive.
If you were shooting clients or something not so important then I wouldn't worry about it. But these are your kids at a young age and I would want to future proof them as much as possible.
And not sure if anyone mentioned cRAW, but 99% of us R5 shooters here shoot cRAW and the files are half the size, so there's no worries about massive files.
I had the 5D and R. I really liked those sensors and I wish Canon had of released a 30mp R5. I got and it was great but I mostly do web presentation and I prefer less megapixels for urban shooting so I sold it for the R6II and R7. Two things surprised me about the R6II.
How much I could crop
Canon EOS R6m2RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM lens105mmf/7.11/1000s400 ISO+0.7 EV
And it could do this.
Canon EOS R6m2RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x lens700mmf/10.01/6400s2500 ISO0.0 EV
artsupreme wrote:
And not sure if anyone mentioned cRAW, but 99% of us R5 shooters here shoot cRAW and the files are half the size, so there's no worries about massive files.
I see no need to use the cRAW, but it's an option. File size is not a problem with the lossless RAW files, about 50MB for the R5. It's much less difficult than managing the files from the ~30% larger 5DsR files in 2015, when drives were less than half of current capacity. I shot about 250K frames over 92% from the R5 in a ~16-month period. That could fit on a 14TB HDD for ~$200 per drive (not including replicates and RAID-Z2 arrays, but still relatively cheap compared to the cost of gear and travel).
Processing burden may be higher than whatever you are using now, but over time the computers will improve and you might not like 20-24MP compared to 100MP or whatever is to come.
EB-1 wrote:
I see no need to use the cRAW, but it's an option.
I see it the ther way around: There's no reason NOT to use cRAW. I've even started using it on my R6 which already produces smallish files. cRAW is 60% of the size of RAW with no difference in image quality unless you are in the habit of underexposing 5 stops.
NonDecaf wrote:
IMHO, it's not going to be worth it if you plan to use it with the 24-105 and 100-400. Get the R5 if you see yourself pairing it with canon's high end L series primes in the future. There is no point in cropping an image from zoom lenses that typically have some CA somewhere in the zoom range and don't resolve as well across the entire frame. Cropping is best reserved for high resolving primes (just my opinion).
Perhaps on future very high pixel count sensors, yes. But on present day sensors, R5 and R7 being the two most demanding, even the "cheap" RF STM lenses, even the 10x zoom 24-240 does very well. When I reach for better optics than the 24-105 STM, 24-240 STM or RF 100-400, I take Zeiss mostly for colour or 100-500 for reach and over all IQ "feel". The resolution of the STM´s is not a reason.
I am not into totally blurred out back grounds. But if you are, you of course would like faster lenses than the STM´s. Bokeh is a better reason than resolution of the lenses to choose among faster L´s. DPP lens correction does it job close to satisfaction, even with L-series lenses.
Imagemaster wrote:
Both the R5 and R6 II have focus-bracketing. The R6 II can stack those images in-camera. I don't know if the R5 can.
The R5 does not do in-body compositing of focus stacked images. Also, the images for the stack are collected using electronic shutter which probably means the R6II will collect them a bit faster.
Focus bracketing/stacking is one of my favorite mirrorless features. I find the in-body compositing a nice preview but get better results selecting the range of images in Lightroom and then stacking them in PS. That way if I'm working on a flower I can pick how much of the background is in focus. Great feature.
One more feature difference, the R6II has a panorama generator similar to those in cell phones. The R5 does not. I find this feature very handy on both my G1X3 and R7.
---------------------------------------------
Z250SA wrote:
... But on present day sensors, R5 and R7 being the two most demanding, even the "cheap" RF STM lenses, even the 10x zoom 24-240 does very well.
On a recent trip my wife took some pictures of nesting storks on a chimney top using the 150 mm end of the R7's 18-150. I was surprised how much feather and eye detail were captured in the images.
Thanks again for all the helpful and informative responses. seems the general theme is that I probably can't go wrong either way. I'll be puling the trigger in the next few weeks and it may come down to what is available on the used market at the time and how impatient I become .
That said the R8 thread has some great images in it and has me thinking about how much a necessity IBIS is since Ive never had it before. Maybe save 1K and get the RF14-35 L too.
