I have R5 and R5ii and R8. I bought the R8 for weight in backpacking.
I think the R5ii is slightly better than R5 in most respects but marginally so. However it is much better at:
Being able to set the fps vs fixed
Pre capture
CLog 2 for video
However the R5 is better at:
ISO 100 dynamic range (landscape)
cold weather reliabilty
less noisy at really high iso
So I would say if you shoot mostly stills or landscape, the R5 is better. And if you normally push the iso very high, the R5 requires less noise processing.
If you are a big video person, really love the precapture, get the R5ii.
In your case I cannot think that you would ever use the R6 again. At least you should sell it. If you need a 2nd camera, consider the r8 (its inexpensive and useful as a really light option 400grams).
I use the R5/R8 pairing and I like it. That said, I am still debating a R5 mark ll. 50% of my shooting is sports/wildlife.
Scott Stoness wrote:
I have R5 and R5ii and R8. I bought the R8 for weight in backpacking.
I think the R5ii is slightly better than R5 in most respects but marginally so. However it is much better at:
Being able to set the fps vs fixed
Pre capture
CLog 2 for video
However the R5 is better at:
ISO 100 dynamic range (landscape)
cold weather reliabilty
less noisy at really high iso
So I would say if you shoot mostly stills or landscape, the R5 is better. And if you normally push the iso very high, the R5 requires less noise processing.
If you are a big video person, really love the precapture, get the R5ii.
In your case I cannot think that you would ever use the R6 again. At least you should sell it. If you need a 2nd camera, consider the r8 (its inexpensive and useful as a really light option 400grams)....Show more →
I will never understand how people can elevate an issue to a point where it seems significant when in fact with any halfway proper post processing said issues are virtually washed away. The measly 1/2 stop at best of dynamic range advantage of the original R5 over the R5MkII is like a joke when it comes to real world application. Perhaps the largest area that I can't help but scoff at is how people raise the issue of noise up to a point it's absurd. I can easily shoot with a R5MkII at 12,800 and render an image that emulates at ISO200 shot from most cameras full of it's detail and color quality. that isn't from an Adobe product by the way but rather DXO Photolab 8, a leader in RAW noise reduction processing. NO detail is destroyed, and the color rendition is superb. Considering I typically shoot below ISO6400 at most all times anyway it's a moot point. But puhleez stop elevating these miniscule differences as some significant advantage.........in the "Real World" of shooting and processing IF one uses the right software it's NOT. Having owned too many top cameras to count I exceedingly thrilled with what the R5MkII has brought to the table. Be it professional portrait work or birding it's never let me down in ALL conditions.
Hoagie058 wrote:
I use the R5/R8 pairing and I like it. That said, I am still debating a R5 mark ll. 50% of my shooting is sports/wildlife.
As a longtime R6II user, which shares very similar hardware with the R8, I have recently been using the R5II for sports and other work. It's a definite step up for sports because it's more responsive (faster AF acquisition) and the EVF experience is much smoother when trying to keep fast action in the frame (this is also true relative to the R5, which the R6II slightly improved upon). The stacked sensor also allows e-shutter use across a broad range of ball and stick sports with reduced concern about rolling shutter distortion.
The rolling shutter performance of the R5 and R8 is definitely usable and can be OK in many sports situations, but not nearly as quasi-universal as the R5II.
On paper the differences might not be appreciable, but in use, I definitely have found that the R5II is a worthwhile upgrade. At least that's relative to my uses, which include sports where I highly prioritize speed and responsiveness over other parameters. The only better camera(s) available from Canon for sports are the R1 and perhaps the R3, though I have not recently used the R3 and therefore cannot directly compare it against the R5II. I suspect it's relatively a wash where each has certain advantages over the other. IMO the R5II is still the better all-rounder.
The only thing that interests me with the R52 over my R5, is pre-capture, but I'm not up to spending $2K or so just for that. Maybe better to spend it on adding an R72 assuming it has it, when it's released.
Sy Sez wrote:
The only thing that interests me with the R52 over my R5, is pre-capture, but I'm not up to spending $2K or so just for that. Maybe better to spend it on adding an R72 assuming it has it, when it's released.
I am always interested in stacked sensors. My R5 has 291k shutter count, due to not using the stacked sensor.
I just bought an R5 mark Il of the B&S board.
Hoagie058 wrote:
I am always interested in stacked sensors. My R5 has 291k shutter count, due to not using the stacked sensor.
I just bought an R5 mark Il of the B&S board.
Congrats, you will love the R5II for sports and wildlife. The R5 is no slouch, but you will definitely appreciate the improved AF and lack of sensor jello in the R5II.
artsupreme wrote:
Congrats, you will love the R5II for sports and wildlife. The R5 is no slouch, but you will definitely appreciate the improved AF and lack of sensor jello in the R5II.
