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

1 2 3

5 … 7 8 end

R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

Z250SA
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #1 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

artsupreme wrote:
Shoot, if one has to eat porridge for a few months to afford the R6III, that's definitely not the right camera for them as there are plenty of other more affordable options that will produce a similar end result. And even then if you did commit to that, you might as well eat porridge for another couple weeks and get a body that has it all and is not lacking in any area, unless 4k 60 video is all you shoot.

" that's definitely not the right camera", hahha, you sound like me some 40 years ago, so certain of my stiff opinions. Yes, I was a true know-it-all. A long bath out in the Reality has taught me at least a small measure of humbleness. Worth a try, you think? Because we know so little about the situations of others, oh so little, even on a beach in the US, even there.

Nov 18, 2025 at 05:04 PM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #2 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

Z250SA wrote:
" that's definitely not the right camera", hahha, you sound like me some 40 years ago, so certain of my stiff opinions. Yes, I was a true know-it-all. A long bath out in the Reality has taught me at least a small measure of humbleness. Worth a try, you think? Because we know so little about the situations of others, oh so little, even on a beach in the US, even there.

If you call having to eat porridge for 3 months to stretch and buy a $3k camera with shortcomings, a good choice, well then that's what got you to where you are, with horrible decision making. You call it a stiff opinion, but I call it common sense. I'm sorry you know so little about others, you sound sheltered. I would suggest trying to spend more time in poverty stricken places around the globe and you'll learn they are very resourceful people. They would never spend their life savings on an expensive tool that doesn't serve any life changing purpose. Instead they would buy something much more affordable that will give them the same result, and save their hard earned shillings for more appropriate purposes, i.e. life. So take note, it's never too late to learn something.

Nov 18, 2025 at 05:50 PM

Z250SA
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #3 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

artsupreme wrote:
...
If you call having to eat porridge for 3 months to stretch and buy a $3k camera with shortcomings, a good choice, well then that's what got you to where you are, with horrible decision making. You call it a stiff opinion, but I call it common sense. I'm sorry you know so little about others, you sound sheltered. I would suggest trying to spend more time in poverty stricken places around the globe and you'll learn they are very resourceful people. They would never spend their life savings on an expensive tool that doesn't serve any life changing purpose....Show more →

I�m actually with you on most parts. But

1. we do not know the particulars about every potential buyers lives, 2. Finding/getting good used stuff is not that easy everywhere despite our wonderful internet. Bureaucracy, taxes, tariffs, unreliable transports etc. 3. We have no hands on experience with the R63.

The R63 will sell for sure. Why? Because it is basically a 5D4 on steroids. Very few doubt the 5D4. I loved mine. It all boils down to what�s important to the individual user. We just don�t know what�s good or stupid for everyone out there. Believing we know wont let us learn.

Nov 19, 2025 at 03:13 AM

aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #4 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

rscheffler wrote:
There's a very useful role for pre-capture that will not get much mention on these boards because of the predominance of birding/wildlife photographers here: talking heads. Ever since my transition to mirrorless, I've been frustrated with getting good shots of people giving talks/speeches who have the tendency to look down at their notes and only briefly look up at the audience. Some people will literally look up for only half a second at most. And by the time this registers in the EVF and I take a picture, I've already missed the actual moment because of the combination of EVF...Show more →

Pre-capture is good for candids too, makes it easier to capture moments.

From what I hear it would seem that Canon's pre-capture implementation (R5ii, R1 & probably R6iii as well) results in OOF frames when the subject moves rapidly towards the camera during pre-capture. Sony's pre-capture implementation is better for the wildlife use case because it does not exhibit this.

Nov 19, 2025 at 10:28 AM

Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #5 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

I pre-ordered the R5 Mark II in July 2024, but the retailer went bankrupt. They restarted, but forgot about my order. No wonder they went bankrupt, or maybe erasing existing orders is a necessary part of restarting a business. I don't know. In any case, I only found out about it from the papers. They never told me anything. The camera wasn't available in Norway until the end of February, months after retailers in other countries offered their first discounts. I never ordered one, telling myself it was their loss and not mine. By "their," I mean both the retailer and Canon.

I have been on the fence ever since. My R6 Mark II has served me well for the past three years and still does. If I could always get the desired framing, there would be no need to upgrade. 24 Mpx is enough resolution for my needs. However, I do a lot of street photography, and have to act quickly sometimes. Some cropping is unavoidable.

The R5 Mark II is now 10% off in Norway, and the R6 Mark III is on its way. I will get one of them. I don't do wildlife, action, or video, so fps, pre-capture and video specs are wasted on me. The R5 Mark II has a fast sensor readout and 14-bit ADC with the electronic shutter. While these features are nice to have, I have managed well without them for the past couple of years. The R5 Mark II's eye-control autofocus could be interesting for me, but I read that it doesn't work for everyone. On the other hand, the R6 Mark III supposedly has a bit less noise, and a more manageable file size.

Oh well. I am not eating porridge, and since my main reason for considering an upgrade is the ability to crop, I guess the R5 Mark II makes the most sense.

Nov 19, 2025 at 05:36 PM

BrandonSi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #6 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

Toothwalker wrote:
I pre-ordered the R5 Mark II in July 2024, but the retailer went bankrupt. They restarted, but forgot about my order. No wonder they went bankrupt, or maybe erasing existing orders is a necessary part of restarting a business. I don't know. In any case, I only found out about it from the papers. They never told me anything. The camera wasn't available in Norway until the end of February, months after retailers in other countries offered their first discounts. I never ordered one, telling myself it was their loss and not mine. By "their," I mean both the retailer...Show more →

That's a really unfortunate experience, I hope you got your money back?

I think the cropping consideration is probably something people over-analyze. "Most" people are just targeting online for display purposes where even a significant crop on a 24MP sensor still results in enough resolution for online display. I've also printed out 17x22 (A4, I think) images from a 16MP sensor and it looked great.

I shoot soccer with a 100-300 2.8 and 400 2.8 with an R3 and R1. Before I had the R1, I was using the R6 Mk II. It's an exceptional camera, and does really well in low-light / high-iso situations, far better than the 5d Mk II (which I also use).

If I had to sell one camera, and the choice was between the R6 II or the R5 II, I'd sell the R5 II.

I say all this because obviously the R6 III is going to be a significant improvement over the R6 II.. so I would easily choose the R6 III over the R5 II, it's just a far more flexible camera overall, unless for some reason you're using manual focus lenses where the much better EVF on the R5 II will be a real factor.

Here's an example from the R1(24 megapixels), original shot and crop.. I didn't run the numbers, but this is probably close to a 66% crop into the image.

Original Frame

Canon EOS R1 EF400mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens 400mm f/2.8 1/5000s 800 ISO 0.0 EV

Resulting crop

Canon EOS R1 EF400mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens 400mm f/2.8 1/5000s 800 ISO 0.0 EV

Nov 23, 2025 at 09:24 AM

paratom
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #7 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

I decided for the R5ii because of the faster readout, blackoufree ( and more resolution) viewfinder and top display.
There also was a good price so the price difference wasnt too big.
If I couldnt afford the R6iii would be pretty nice as well. You just have to use mechnical shutter for fast things and therefore accept less frames per second.

Nov 23, 2025 at 10:24 AM

swldstn
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #8 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

I think I�ve stated this earlier but I�ve decided to stick with my R5 Mark II, hold off on buying a back up body , and cancelled by R6 Mark III pre-order. The R6 Mark III seams like a great camera and I know from my days using the 5D Mark II, III, and IV that 33 Mpixels is typically more than enough. Just decided I�m not going to buy another camera right now. It�s a personal choice to wait until the new year and see if I stay with Canon that I owned and have used since the film days or stay with my Sony gear that I�ve owned since 2013 when the introduced the Alpha mirrorless cameras. Both great systems with plus and minus. All that said I have kept in my RF 45mm f/1.2 order to see if that is the smaller, high quality lens that I�ve been wanting for the RF system for travel and casual shooting.

Nov 23, 2025 at 10:27 AM

JasonMello
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #9 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

See I�m in a different boat I think then most. I have an r5ii and a c400. I want to swap the r5ii for the r6iii for open gate. But I want manageable file sizes for open gate from the r6iii. I believe when the c400 gets open gate it�ll be in raw only.

Nov 23, 2025 at 11:55 AM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #10 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

BrandonSi wrote:
That's a really unfortunate experience, I hope you got your money back?

I think the cropping consideration is probably something people over-analyze. "Most" people are just targeting online for display purposes where even a significant crop on a 24MP sensor still results in enough resolution for online display. I've also printed out 17x22 (A4, I think) images from a 16MP sensor and it looked great.

I shoot soccer with a 100-300 2.8 and 400 2.8 with an R3 and R1. Before I had the R1, I was using the R6 Mk II. It's an exceptional camera, and does really well in low-light...Show more →

A couple things as it seems you might be contradicting yourself. First, I don't believe the R6II is far better than R5II at high ISOs. It's definitely better at native resolution, but I wouldn't call it far better considering the resolution. When you downsample the R5II to the same resolution the difference is negligible, especially if downsampling for the web which you say is your intended use for most people. I've seen some say the R5II is actually better when downsampled, but either way we are just splitting hairs and I would call it a wash.

R6II is a more flexible camera overall?? Please explain. Are you referring only to the extra 10fps? I would say it's the opposite due to the higher resolution of the R5II as you have more flexibility. Buffer is another thing that could be argued is better on R5II for action (lasts longer). EVF is also better on R5II with more resolution and blackout free. Precapture could also be argued, but I'm not going to cheerlead that feature as it's way over hyped IMO.

You are making the assumption that the R6III will be a significant improvement? Not necessarily, because unless Canon has some new sensor tech the R6III could be actually be worse in the noise department at native resolution due to the smaller pixels. But again we are talking at native resolution and when downsampled you are back to nearly the same levels of noise again. If they surprise us with better noise at native resolution it will likely be minor, and not a significant improvement.

We are definitely splitting hairs when talking about noise these days, so much that a camera like the R5II is nearly perfect unless nit picking, and one of the few complaints I could make is wanting less noise SOOC. Although the noise is easily processed out, it can be nit picked, but that just speaks to how good the camera is as an all-arounder

Nov 23, 2025 at 11:56 AM

BrandonSi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #11 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

artsupreme wrote:
A couple things as it seems you might be contradicting yourself. First, I don't believe the R6II is far better than R5II at high ISOs. It's definitely better at native resolution, but I wouldn't call it far better considering the resolution. When you downsample the R5II to the same resolution the difference is negligible, especially if downsampling for the web which you say is your intended use for most people. I've seen some say the R5II is actually better when downsampled, but either way we are just splitting hairs and I would call it a wash.

R6II is a more flexible...Show more →

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion on this, but I'm not really interested in a lengthy discussion justifying my opinion.. (and please read that statement in that in the non-snarkiest way possible).

Nov 23, 2025 at 12:15 PM

Uarctos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #12 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

Same for me, the R6III looks like the better camera. However, I'm still waiting for the real reviews, not the ones available right now.

Nov 23, 2025 at 12:40 PM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #13 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

BrandonSi wrote:
You're absolutely entitled to your opinion on this, but I'm not really interested in a lengthy discussion justifying my opinion.. (and please read that statement in that in the non-snarkiest way possible).

My background is that I shoot 100,000+ images per year, across 4 different Canon bodies, including the R5 Mk II. My opinion is that the R6II is a better camera for most people between those two, and judging from the improvements on the R6 III (though I haven't ordered it, or used it), it appears close the gaps in a number of areas where I think one might...Show more →

A lot of what I wrote was not my opinion as the ISO performance and physical camera features are the facts. Opinions for you liking the R6II better for sports is fine, for the smaller files, less processing, less storage, less noise SOOC etc. as we all have our own preferences. I was just pointing out some of the things you claimed that could be misleading to others if they were not aware of the specs/performance of each camera. There are many of us here who shoot 100's of thousands of images per year and we all chose different tools. I believe rscheffler is probably one of the heaviest sports shooters here and if I'm not mistaken I think he prefers R5II as well. I shoot action sports, same difference. Horses for courses.

Nov 23, 2025 at 02:15 PM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #14 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

There are a few statements of fact where opinions play no role.

-the R6iii sensor readout speed is less than half the speed of the R5ii
-R6iii only has one processor for the entire lift
-R5ii has two processors to help with resource intense functions like readout speed and AF algorithm processing
-R6iii is capped at 12 bit raw file capture in ES
-R5ii does 14 bit raw in all modes except for compressed raw
-R6iii has identical specs for both the EVF and rear LCD as the R6mk1
-sensor readout speed and processing power are the two primary factors determining AF speed and general performance

Make of these facts what you will, but even before we get to discussing noise, downsampling/resolution normalization, etc., the R6iii is inherently much less camera at a price point upon release that is not that far off of what you can procure an R5ii for.

No one is saying the R6iii will suck or will be incapable. I am 100% certain it will be a fine camera. But that doesn�t change the hardware differences and the inherent truths we already know about based on those differences.

This reminds me of when the original Sony A9 first came out. There was a slew of people who basically argued for and believed that the A7iii released shortly after it was all anyone needed and that the A9 was just overkill. Fast forward to today, and many more people now place much more value in shooting at 20 fps or faster, silent shooting with minimal rolling shutter, top end AF performance, etc.

As another side note, I still shoot Sony. And when I need the most responsive AF performance, I still rely on my A9mk1 over my A7R5 in many scenarios. The faster readout speed still shows, even from an 8+ year old camera.

Edit: another fun fact, R5ii processes 60 AF calculations per second while the R6iii does 40 in ES. In mechanical, the R6iii does only 12. Combine this tidbit with the fact that it can only do 12 bit raw in ES and I think anyone being intellectually honest must admit, the disparity is significant.

1. Fact check me
2. Facts don�t care about your feelings.

Nov 23, 2025 at 08:10 PM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #15 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

JohnDizzo15 wrote:
There are a few statements of fact where opinions play no role.

-the R6iii sensor readout speed is less than half the speed of the R5ii
-R6iii only has one processor for the entire lift
-R5ii has two processors to help with resource intense functions like readout speed and AF algorithm processing
-R6iii is capped at 12 bit raw file capture in ES
-R5ii does 14 bit raw in all modes except for compressed raw
-R6iii has identical specs for both the EVF and rear LCD as the R6mk1
-sensor readout speed and processing power are the two primary factors determining AF speed and general...Show more →

All that and nearly the same price...

Anyway, I'm anxious to see what the A7V delivers, should be a similar price range and it sounds like it could be a little better if rumors are true.

Nov 23, 2025 at 09:34 PM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #16 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

artsupreme wrote:
All that and nearly the same price...

Anyway, I'm anxious to see what the A7V delivers, should be a similar price range and it sounds like it could be a little better if rumors are true.

Agreed. I actually recently picked up a second R5ii used/like new for less than an R6iii new if including tax.

I was excited to see what Sony brought to the table with the A7V, but the acquisition of that second R5ii quelled that. I�m still sitting on a few current Sony bodies that are plenty good for what I use them for, so the A7V will have to be pretty impressive for me to want one at release.

If I had to take a guess, it�ll probably use the same sensor but with an added AI processor, same awesome screen as the A7RV and A1ii, have a slightly boosted readout speed because of the extra processor, and maybe the higher res EVF. Basically bringing it in line with the A7RV but with less res, AI AF, and faster readout.

Nov 23, 2025 at 09:47 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #17 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

artsupreme wrote:
There are many of us here who shoot 100's of thousands of images per year and we all chose different tools. I believe rscheffler is probably one of the heaviest sports shooters here and if I'm not mistaken I think he prefers R5II as well. I shoot action sports, same difference. Horses for courses.

I do prefer the R5II over the R6II primarily because it's a more responsive camera. Very little EVF lag and faster to lock onto subjects. In comparison the R6II feels a little 'dull', a little sluggish. I'm curious to try the R6III as I think it will work OK for football and it actually has a significantly deeper CRAW buffer than the R5II, which I find quite curious but would definitely benefit me. Unfortunately based on what my Canon rep told me, it's unlikely they'll have demo cameras to loan out for quite some time.

I'm taking an educated guess and think the R6III will close the performance gap to the R5II somewhat. But I don't expect it to better it.

That said, my previous two football games were shot with the R1 and it ruined everything. Today I shot with the R5II. It was an indoor game and AF was not flawless. Now I feel it was a bit sluggish in comparison to the R1.

I have lots of fast action sequences where the first two R5II frames were soft (with the 100-300 & 1.4x TC) before the AF figured out what was going on and didn't experience similar with the R1. Thinking back, I saw the same behavior when I used it with the RF 600/4 to shoot motorcycle racing this summer... If I shot more sports, or it was more lucrative, I'd seriously consider the R1. But the R5II is the better all-rounder for what I do.

Nov 23, 2025 at 10:56 PM

BrandonSi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #18 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

JohnDizzo15 wrote:
There are a few statements of fact where opinions play no role.

-the R6iii sensor readout speed is less than half the speed of the R5ii
-R6iii only has one processor for the entire lift
-R5ii has two processors to help with resource intense functions like readout speed and AF algorithm processing
-R6iii is capped at 12 bit raw file capture in ES
-R5ii does 14 bit raw in all modes except for compressed raw
-R6iii has identical specs for both the EVF and rear LCD as the R6mk1
-sensor readout speed and processing power are the two primary factors determining AF speed and general...Show more →

I don't have any "feelings" about Canon cameras. It's like having feelings about a crescent wrench. They're tools, and Canon makes a variety of good tools. (There are some cameras I will admit to having strong feelings about, but Canon certainly doesn't make them).

I think you're assuming I care enough about a position here to get into a serious discussion on this. I do not. I�m not disputing any of the technical details you listed, they�re all valid on paper.

My original comment was only that for most people, most of the time, the R6 II (and likely the R6 III based on its improvements) delivers a more balanced price-to-performance package and a shooting experience that is closer than the spec sheet implies. Those who spend more time comparing camera stats and metrics than shooting will weigh things differently, and that�s OK.

I�m not trying to convince anyone to prefer one camera over another. Just sharing my experience for others who may prioritize feedback based on hands-on results with the cameras over spec sheets. People can take or leave it as it�s intended, simply another data point.

Nov 24, 2025 at 08:26 AM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #19 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

BrandonSi wrote:
I don't have any "feelings" about Canon cameras. It's like having feelings about a crescent wrench. They're tools, and Canon makes a variety of good tools. (There are some cameras I will admit to having strong feelings about, but Canon certainly doesn't make them).

Based on the "most people, most of the time" logic we have seen from various individuals (now you) around FM in the past, it just doesn't hold up as one could move that threshold line even further back to older cameras being very good cameras that were good enough for "most." I would have been fine using my A7Rii, 5DIV, X-T1, or each iteration of camera subsequent to that for the rest of my life, but that isn't how this works.

As it stands, we are here to discuss a newly released camera in 2025 that costs $300 more than it's predecessor that shares key components/specs to it, and even its predecessor's predecessor. Your statement that the R6iii delivers a more balanced price-to-performance package is a statement of opinion, as none of us have had hands-on time with it. Currently, we can only work off of spec sheets, and the spec sheet tells the story I have presented.

I had both the original R6 and R6ii. Both were certainly solid cameras that most would have been indefinitely content with. That being said, for $2799 in 2025, I was hoping to see improvements in core areas such as sensor readout speed, EVF, LCD, etc. From the spec sheet, I already have a good idea of how the R6iii will perform in my hands, as many of the specs are similar to its predecessors (sensor readout speed is nearly the same and EVF/LCD appear the same). All this, before we get to the fact that in ES, it�s still only giving us 12 bit files (albeit with a bit more resolution). These are all things we can extrapolate ample insight from.

Lastly, some of us look at spec sheets because we have been in this game long enough to be able to identify/extrapolate information (based on experience) what a new product is going to be like. The reason I bring up the A7RV and A9 example is because on paper, most would think the A7RV would be the better performer as many have opined around the web. But in real-world experience (as we both place higher value in), the sensor readout speed of the original A9 (from 2017) still shows its strength over newer cams with slower readouts/AF calculation ability in certain scenarios. This holds true even if there are some scenarios where the newer cams do way better for other reasons.

Open Gate at release is the one thing that would make a compelling case for the R6iii for video shooters.

Nov 24, 2025 at 11:03 AM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #20 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III

I think you're assuming I care enough about a position here to get into a serious discussion on this. I do not. I�m not disputing any of the technical details you listed, they�re all valid on paper.

My original comment was only that for most people, most of the time, the R6 II (and likely...Show more →

So you're in a gear forum and you join a discussion in a thread that's comparing two cameras. You post some things that are contradictory and misleading about the gear being discussed, and you are asked to explain. Instead of explaining why you think the R6II is "far better" or "far more flexible camera overall" than the R5II, you deflect and claim it's my opinion. I respond and tell you that's not my opinion those are the facts, John follows up with the actual specs on paper, rscheffler follows up with his opinion from actual hands on experience, and then you go on to insinuate that we weigh things differently because we just compare specs all day, and none of us have any hands on experience like you. Got it.

Nov 24, 2025 at 04:04 PM

1 2 3 4 5 … 7 8 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 8 end