fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

Archive 2023 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

Z250SA
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

TroPhoto wrote:
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.

If your lenses have IS, you already have good stabilization. I use a lot of manual lenses at times and like to have IBIS with them. For very low light and then only of stationary or solid subjects the combined IS and IBIS is good, but a tripod is better.

May 08, 2023 at 01:42 PM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

I don't have the R6 II, but I own the R5 and the R8, and I owned the original R6 prior...and since the R8 is the R6 II essentially with IBIS and inside the R5's body (with a few minor modifications, but basically the R8's top plate), I feel relatively qualified to chime in, especially since you're considering the R8 it seems too.

Overall, the sensor on the R5 is better, but the R8/R6 II sensor is also very, very good, just lower in resolution (and slightly better at high ISO). Between the R5 and the R6 II, it really all boils down to whether you need the resolution or not. If you're fine with 24MP, there is no reason whatsoever to go for the R5, as the R6 II has essentially every advantage of the R5 aside from resolution, plus it has a better AF system (not that the R5's is bad...just the newer one is a little better). The R5's viewfinder and rear screen are a little better too, but it's not worth paying the money just for those minor things.

Now, between the R8 and the R6 II, things get more interesting. There, image quality and AF are identical...you get a bit better performance with regards to mechanical burst rate, and a little deeper buffer. But the big differences are the battery, the dual card slots, IBIS and a nice EVF bump.

IBIS can be a godsend for unstabilized lenses, but if most or all of your lenses have IS already, it's not a big deal at all. The dual card slots - necessary if you do professional work, and nice to have otherwise, but not essential for hobbyist work. Battery life is significant - one R6 II battery is worth two R8 batteries. EVF is noticeable, but the one on the R8 is pretty good all things considered, and is still large and relatively clear.

Having both the R5 and the R8, I get to choose between them, but I'll say: I've found the R8 an absolute joy to use over the past few weeks, and I haven't really missed my R5 at all. I will still use my R5 as my primary once my initial run through with the R8 has finished, but I'll use the R8 for wildlife for the better AF and wider AF spot with my 800/11, and for any time I want a lighter weight body, because I really don't feel like I'm missing all that much.

The R5 is definitely the better camera in most respects, and may even gain some of the newer features that the R8 and R6 II have in a coming firware update, but whether it's worth it to you is really a personal opinion. If I could only have one, I'd keep the R5....but if I was really strapped for cash, I wouldn't have any issue sticking with the R8. If I were buying now, and choosing my ONLY body, I'd probably move towards the R6 II, especially if I was limited with funds.

I know I simultaneously recommended all three bodies, but honestly: you will be able to create great work with any of the three, and they're all fantastic cameras. Just need to decide what things are important to you, and if the extra bells and whistles are worth the cost for the R6 II or R5.

May 08, 2023 at 03:02 PM

NonDecaf
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

Z250SA wrote:
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...Show more →

Fair enough, we just have a difference of opinion, it's no big deal.

May 08, 2023 at 03:06 PM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

EB-1 wrote:
I see no need to use the cRAW

stanj wrote:
Double the buffer, for one. It matters to some.

Wish I knew that during the past couple of years.

There are a few times I might have used it, but it would not be my default.

EBH

May 08, 2023 at 05:20 PM

Z250SA
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

NonDecaf wrote:
Fair enough, we just have a difference of opinion, it's no big deal.

To the larger point, of course there is more to an image than simply resolution and IQ, but I am finding that I use my phone for most photography, and my main camera only when I want to maximize image quality, or for sports/action.

Actually I agree with you, good glass is better. But there are so many including myself that have found the cheap-line RF lenses surprisingly good. And why would Canon release lenses to be used the coming decade that would not cope with the sensors of today?

May 09, 2023 at 01:44 AM

Mike_5D
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

Z250SA wrote:
Actually I agree with you, good glass is better. But there are so many including myself that have found the cheap-line RF lenses surprisingly good. And why would Canon release lenses to be used the coming decade that would not cope with the sensors of today?

Yes. When I started out with EF lenses, I felt like I needed L glass to get the performance I wanted. Of course, my first DSLR topped out at ISO1600 and had one effective AF point, so fast glass was almost a necessity. Now with the R6, I still adapt my fast EF-L lenses when needed, but most of the time I get by on the 24-240, 24-105STM, or RF50/1.8. Slower apertures are less of a problem and allow the lens to be smaller and lighter. They are plenty sharp in the center where I need them to be.

May 09, 2023 at 09:29 AM

muurman
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

I owned the R6 Mark II but i do a lot cropping.
I sold the R6 Mark II and bought the R5 as a second hand.
It all depends on what your main use is.

May 09, 2023 at 09:43 AM

gipper53
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

artsupreme wrote:
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...Show more →

I don't subscribe to the theory of "higher res monitor needs higher resolution camera". The images are as good (or bad) as it always was from the camera. Just because the dots on the screen gets smaller, doesn't mean the image is going to look worse at any given viewing size. Seems to be this mindset the image size has to match the monitor res 1:1 or better to be worth viewing.

So what if the image is scaled 150% to fill the screen? I've viewed plenty of my old 4-6MP camera images (many cropped) on my 4K screens and they still look as good as they ever did viewed big. They have what detail they have, no more no less. They actually look better on higher res screens than they ever did at 2.5K even though they don't fill it 1:1.

I mean, are Fuji GFX 100 images gonna be "outdated" on a 40" 16K monitor? When people are happy printing 60" wide with that camera? I don't think so.

Definitely should never look at a film image except 4x5 or larger ever again once you get that 8k monitor.

May 13, 2023 at 08:14 PM

stanj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

gipper53 wrote:
I don't subscribe to the theory of "higher res monitor needs higher resolution camera". The images are as good (or bad) as it always was from the camera.

Not sure what equipment you use, but my 1DS images looked excellent on my 30" ACD in 2004, but they don't look that great on my 32" 6K XDR. The comparisons go on, all the way to the 1Ds3, 1DX2. The 1DX2 doesn't show any weakness on the 4K display on my left, because _every_ image shows the same shortcomings. But on the 6K display in front of me, it looks decidedly more aged than the R5 or 100s photo. I have been watching this over the last 20+ years, and I don't see a reason that it will change anytime soon. Just wait until HDR becomes real, and the 100s images will have incredible depth that even the best 1DS images can't reach.

May 13, 2023 at 08:41 PM

gipper53
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

stanj wrote:
Not sure what equipment you use, but my 1DS images looked excellent on my 30" ACD in 2004, but they don't look that great on my 32" 6K XDR. The comparisons go on, all the way to the 1Ds3, 1DX2. The 1DX2 doesn't show any weakness on the 4K display on my left, because _every_ image shows the same shortcomings. But on the 6K display in front of me, it looks decidedly more aged than the R5 or 100s photo. I have been watching this over the last 20+ years, and I don't see a reason that it will change...Show more →

I have no doubt that the higher res cameras look better on the 6K monitor. If you have the resolution to fill the monitor and then some, it should provide higher fidelity. My main point is that just because the monitor res goes up, the camera doesn't have to keep pace to still enjoy viewing them. Sure, for the 100% best possible viewing experience the screen can offer you'll want enough image pixels to fill the monitor pixels.

I think of it like printing. Your 6K screen is basically like viewing a 230-ish DPI print at roughly 27x16 inches. I've made prints that size from 6MP cameras and they look pretty good. Of course, 45 or 100 MP would make an even better, more detailed print at that size. Higher res cameras make better large prints, we all know this. But that doesn't mean you can't make nice, large size prints from lower res cameras. Just manage your viewing expectations, and know to expect a bit of softness from a 12MP image on 8K screens at the pixel level.

By the same token, accept that you'll see some noise from ISO 12800 images viewed (or printed) at 27x16 from ANY camera today. A bit of softness or noise is not the end of the world or a "wrecked the viewing experience" situation in my book. Not every image has to be pixel-perfect at this size.

Yesterday I took about 60 images of my kids planting flowers for Mother's Day. I used my 16MP Micro43 cameras with budget primes; the lowest resolution cameras and cheapest lenses I own. It was the perfect tool for the job and I like the images. My R6II, 5Ds and L glass sat at home. The fact these images won't fill a future 12K monitor 1:1 at the pixel level is not a concern for me. They are images I'll enjoy forever, regardless of how I view them. They will look good for eternity if I print them 11x14 and stash them in a photo album, and 50 years from now nobody is going to complain they don't have enough detail for the purpose they serve.

Or maybe I have a totally wrong viewpoint of how I enjoy consuming photographs...

May 14, 2023 at 11:16 AM

JWilsonphoto
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

As always, what camera one chooses is a very personal decision. The R5 is a dream platform. I had two R3's on order, right before they arrived I had an opportunity to shoot with one for a couple of days. The R3 is an amazing camera, but I quickly realized that it was going to be very difficult for me to drop back from the R5 file size. Once again, that depends upon your end use, but the guys who mentioned "future proofing" added yet another factor to consider. All things being equal, a bigger file is generally going to be a better place to start.

May 14, 2023 at 12:25 PM

artsupreme
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

gipper53 wrote:
I have no doubt that the higher res cameras look better on the 6K monitor.

Correct, this was my point. I've been shooting since the film days as well and I'm very aware of how older 4mp files look on all my different monitors. Just like Stan, I've seen the progression over the years. I can tell you the R5 looks best on a 6k monitor and will look best in the future compared to a 20-24mp file. Just because you are happy with the way your 4mp files look on your 4k monitor doesn't mean that others don't want more MP to look better now and also in the future on higher resolution displays. Go buy and R5 and 6K monitor and you will understand what we are talking about when you see it with your own eyes.

May 14, 2023 at 12:27 PM

gipper53
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

artsupreme wrote:
Correct, this was my point. I've been shooting since the film days as well and I'm very aware of how older 4mp files look on all my different monitors. Just like Stan, I've seen the progression over the years. I can tell you the R5 looks best on a 6k monitor and will look best in the future compared to a 20-24mp file. Just because you are happy with the way your 4mp files look on your 4k monitor doesn't mean that others don't want more MP to look better now and also in the future on higher resolution displays....Show more →

I'm not denying there's progress here; I'm not blind to it. I have a 5Ds, does that count as a high res camera or do I need that R5 to understand?

May 14, 2023 at 01:52 PM

Mike_5D
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

gipper53 wrote:
I'm not denying there's progress here; I'm not blind to it. I have a 5Ds, does that count as a high res camera or do I need that R5 to understand?

May 14, 2023 at 01:57 PM

artsupreme
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

gipper53 wrote:
I'm not denying there's progress here; I'm not blind to it. I have a 5Ds, does that count as a high res camera or do I need that R5 to understand?

27" 5K Apple retina in my wife's home office 15 feet away is the highest res screen I've viewed my 5Ds images on. Impressive? Yes. Super-duper game changing and I wanted to upgrade my 32" 4K upon first sight? 4 years later I'm still sitting on 4K. That's just me.

Maybe at 42 I'm becoming a luddite, but after years of chasing moar pixels (on screen and in camera) I...Show more →

I'm a little older and have always been like you, sharing similar opinions since I owned a fine art printing business for many years, starting with the first giclee printer available in the late 90's. Printing to me is different, but I won't get into that. You can find recent posts of me promoting the R6 over the R5 not too long ago, so I was never a high MP chaser or promoter. But that all changes quickly when you see things with your own eyes, and yes I have a 5k iMac too. I'm the type who will pass photography onto my kids who will play with these files in 25 years, and I will have high resolution digital displays around the house as well. Print will always be a popular medium, but digital displays are different and they will be mainstream soon.

Being Mother's Day today, we just looked through my Mom's photo albums of my Grandpa driving tanks in WWII and my Dad in Vietnam. And unlike you I actually do wish we had something better to look at than the deteriorating 3x5 prints in her photo album. I'm fortunate to have the small B&W prints to look at, but something bigger and higher res would be much better. That doesn't mean people like you can't be perfectly happy with the smaller size/quality prints. It's just a personal preference.

May 14, 2023 at 02:14 PM

gipper53
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

artsupreme wrote:
I'm a little older and have always been like you, sharing similar opinions since I owned a fine art printing business for many years, starting with the first giclee printer available in the late 90's. Printing to me is different, but I won't get into that. You can find recent posts of me promoting the R6 over the R5 not too long ago, so I was never a high MP chaser or promoter. But that all changes quickly when you see things with your own eyes, and yes I have a 5k iMac too. I'm the type who will pass...Show more →

All good points. Somehow I wonder when we'll see the day when large digital screens are common place in people's homes? The tech is here now, I just don't see it yet. Most people I know the only large screen in their house is their TV. And most aren't using it as a high res picture viewer. To this day the only 'large images' I see on people's walls are prints, and canvas seems to be popular now. Sure, the wealthy are buying photographic art, but I don't hang with that crowd lol.

I personally can't see digital images from a modern 24MP camera being 'obsolete' for any practical purpose over the next several decades, even as as digital imaging keeps advancing. It's purely resolution, and contrary to what we thought 20 years ago, our consumption media has gotten smaller, not larger the last few years. 24MP will display well enough at large sizes on multiple mediums to the point where the average set of human eyes will see it and be happy. Of course, the discerning connoisseurs will always be looking for more.

It's sorta like cars. There's plenty of cars that will do 200+MPH and carve up a race track, but yet the 99.9% are sufficiently served with Honda Accord levels of performance for their driving needs. I can see 24MP (ish) will be the Honda Accord of imaging for a long time. Not the best, but enough to get the job done day in and day out for most purposes. While the drivers of European sedans could never imagine lowering themselves to such a standard

And I get what you're saying about the "small print size" being good enough, but having only an old 3x5 print remaining is a far cry from a 16 or 24MP RAW file lol

May 14, 2023 at 02:47 PM

Rivermist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

Many good points made here, one that drew my attention is regarding IBIS, useful mainly for lenses without IS, which are the expensive RF super-primes with mouth-watering resolution, many EF primes both L and non-L, and third-party glass. Your current intent to use the 24-105L (very good lens with very good IS) and the consumer grade 100-400 which probably does not resolve down to a 45MF sensor on its own, with plausible IS. So IBIS may be an overkill, and the suggestion to start with the R8 (R6mk2 sensor without IBIS) could be a good way to feel your way around.
Also to consider: the R6mk2 and R8 have updated circuitry that is less power hungry, compared to the first crop of R cameras (R, RP, R3, R5 and R6). Also these newer bodies have the new flash socket, no big deal for now but as more flash units, audio accessories and other items leverage the new connectors, the R5 could become obsolete on that aspect.

May 14, 2023 at 03:06 PM

artsupreme
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

gipper53 wrote:
All good points. Somehow I wonder when we'll see the day when large digital screens are common place in people's homes? The tech is here now, I just don't see it yet. Most people I know the only large screen in their house is their TV. And most aren't using it as a high res picture viewer. To this day the only 'large images' I see on people's walls are prints, and canvas seems to be popular now. Sure, the wealthy are buying photographic art, but I don't hang with that crowd lol.

I personally can't see digital images from a...Show more →

I hear you and understand your viewpoint that 24MP is enough for you. But there's a reason why we've gone from 1MP to cameras now capable of 100MP in the last 20 years. Back when we had 4MP's it looked great and we felt it was enough until we saw it next to an 8MP file we felt it was enough and looked great until we saw it next to a 16MP file and that looked great and thought it was enough until 30MP file and so on. And I realize for some people, 4-8MP is enough still today for most uses.

Everything looks great until you have the opportunity to compare it side by side with the next best thing....

I still have three old 1080p monitors and I thought they were amazing when i got them..they looked great for a long time until i saw them next to my 2.5k and 4k monitors...and I thought those looked great until I put my 5k iMac next to them...and that still looks great, but 6k is here and next comes 8k and so on. Displays and sensors will continue to advance. High end digital displays might be for the wealthy right now, but technology is hockey sticking and eventually your 24MP file will be that 3x5 print in my Mother's photo album. That's just how technology works over time. Go into a best buy and test your eyes to see if you can see a difference in picture quality between 1080p, 4k, and 8k Tv's. If you can't see a difference or don't appreciate the better resolution displays, then a higher MP body for future proofing is not for you.

1DmkII is still my favorite camera of all time, and it's sensor is "enough" to display here on the web. And for professional motocross photos it's still "enough". I could still use it in place of an R3. But, if I'm shooting something I care about like family, travel, or anything I expect to display and revisit in many years, I would never use a 1DmkII over an R5. Because I know I'll have 16k monitors by then, and massive digital wall displays that will take place of my large prints.

May 14, 2023 at 04:29 PM

gipper53
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

artsupreme wrote:
I hear you and understand your viewpoint that 24MP is enough for you. But there's a reason why we've gone from 1MP to cameras now capable of 100MP in the last 20 years. Back when we had 4MP's it looked great and we felt it was enough until we saw it next to an 8MP file we felt it was enough and looked great until we saw it next to a 16MP file and that looked great and thought it was enough until 30MP file and so on. And I realize for some people, 4-8MP is enough still today for...Show more →

I can't deny any of that logic there. Nothing wrong with future proofing and wanting the best IQ you can get.

I figure in 20 years the AI software will be able to make up for all of my past and current deficiencies as a photographer

May 14, 2023 at 06:43 PM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · Used R5 or new R6 mk 2

I have to chime in here. My display is a late 2015 5K 27" Retina iMac, 16:9, 15 MP. Back when I purchased it I was using a 21 MP 5D3. My images looked great on the new display, I could use a magnifying glass and not see jaggies.

The idea behind a Retina display is that the pixel density is high enough, ~220-250 PPI, that the human eye can't resolve individual pixels at the closest possible viewing (probably a teenager). Eight years later Apple has not released a higher resolution 27" display. A 30" display would require more MP probably 6K.

4K or greater "big screen" TVs are a bit different in that one is viewing them from further away. There are formulas for how close one should view a TV based on its size. I don't see a big push for higher broadcast or streaming content above 4K. It will probably come.

So it would seem that 20 MP is sufficient to feed current and future <= 30 inch desk top displays. I've found that 24 MP gave me more room to crop for composition rather than just straightening horizons. Also I will crop 16:9 when composition works to fill my display.

So why do I prefer the R5 to the R6II? Easy, reach. Cropping my R5 1.6 exactly fills the width of my 5K display. When I'm not cropping heavily I export my final images at 20 MP, sufficient for all my output needs.

One other wrinkle however is the enlarging capability of software like Topaz. If I've done my job well, images from my 12 MP original 5D or a cell phone can be uprezed to look just fine on my 5K display. This capability will only improve with time and probably offset future increases in display requirements. My 4 and 6 MP images currently struggle a bit if I pixel peep, but some images are just too important as memories for ultimate IQ to matter much.

My 2 centavos.

May 14, 2023 at 07:30 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end