John_TX wrote:
The R5 is now $2,999 new after $300 rebate.
Any insight on when prices might start coming down for this 2020 camera?
Yes, when market demand falls, the price will drop. It's still a great camera and preferred by many over the newer model. Maybe when the R5 MK III debuts in a few years it might drop below $2000.
John_TX wrote:
The R5 is now $2,999 new after $300 rebate.
Any insight on when prices might start coming down for this 2020 camera?
I sold two of my R5's in Feb 2025 for $1900 each with two batteries. The new owners have been happily clicking away now for over a year. I would look for a nice used one and save 1K+ off retail. I'd say it's probably the best value of any used camera out there for $1900.
Ah-yep, when I wanted a second R5 body at the end of 2025, I went with a low-shutter-count used body for just under $2k. No brainer. Or go with a Canon refurb, they are currently $2699 and in stock at Canon USA.
It's a $2k body used with the R5II out. I just let mine go for about that. It was mint. Probably no more than 100 mechanical shutter count.
As for your observation, yes, to me it seems to be over priced new, but then right now so does everything Canon sells. The difference in prices vs the EF era are often more than double for the same specs. I find it very hard to cope with. Some day I may actually own an RF lens that isn't a little kit.
Gochugogi wrote:
Yes, when market demand falls, the price will drop. It's still a great camera and preferred by many over the newer model. Maybe when the R5 MK III debuts in a few years it might drop below $2000.
Why is the older model prefereable? I have not bought (or looked) at cameras ih years and my limited research put the R5 Mk II at the top of my list.
Gary Udstrand wrote:
Why is the older model prefereable? I have not bought (or looked) at cameras ih years and my limited research put the R5 Mk II at the top of my list.
It depends on what you shoot and your budget. The R5II is a better camera mostly just for AF, 30fps vs 20fps, and faster readout speed - so less rolling shutter than the R5. But the new R5II sensor comes with more noise than the R5. So if you don't shoot a ton of fast action and don't need the best AF available, then R5 is no slouch. R5's AF is very good and it has cleaner files while being quite a bit less money if you buy used under 2k. I'm a two camera minimum guy and I would rather have (2) R5 bodies than (1) R5II. I currently own (2) R5II's but I could easily go back to the R5's and use them for another few years and be happy.
There's also pre-capture in the R5II which IMO is mostly a marketing gimmick but has some uses, for example if you are shooting birds fly off perches all day (perpendicular only). I've owned my R5II's since before they were released and I turned on pre-capture once to test it. It also has a special eye focus feature which rarely works for most people. It has some other gimmicky AF features that I don't use but could be useful I guess. For video, the R5II is much better due to cooling, clog2, 8k 60, etc, which is where I would say a worthy reason to upgrade over the R5.
Gary Udstrand wrote:
Why is the older model prefereable? I have not bought (or looked) at cameras ih years and my limited research put the R5 Mk II at the top of my list.
R5 has better dynamic range at iso 100 than R5ii. So if you exclusively shooting landscape, its a better camera.
It also requires less noise reduction at iso 12k, for wildlife. So easier to cull and process.
The biggest gain to R5ii over R5 are clog2 (better video), precapture (birds, sports), and way faster sensor speed (<rolling shutter). However for most but sports and BIF, the R5 is close enough to R5II that its a bargain, because of its lower price.
artsupreme wrote:
It depends on what you shoot and your budget. The R5II is a better camera mostly just for AF, 30fps vs 20fps, and faster readout speed - so less rolling shutter than the R5. But the new R5II sensor comes with more noise than the R5. So if you don't shoot a ton of fast action and don't need the best AF available, then R5 is no slouch. R5's AF is very good and it has cleaner files while being quite a bit less money if you buy used under 2k. I'm a two camera minimum guy and I would rather have (2) R5 bodies than (1) R5II. I currently own (2) R5II's but I could easily go back to the R5's and use them for another few years and be happy.
There's also pre-capture in the R5II which IMO is mostly a marketing gimmick but has some uses, for example if you are shooting birds fly off perches all day (perpendicular only). I've owned my R5II's since before they were released and I turned on pre-capture once to test it. It also has a special eye focus feature which rarely works for most people. It has some other gimmicky AF features that I don't use but could be useful I guess. For video, the R5II is much better due to cooling, clog2, 8k 60, etc, which is where I would say a worthy reason to upgrade over the R5....Show more →
Thank you for the response. It is good info to know. I am kind of torn since I shoot landscapes and wildlife, one of my main reasons for the upgrade is the superior focusing systems in the newer cameras. I am sure that either would be a big step up for me. I was hoping the eye tracking worked well enough that it would be usable.
Do both cameras have the AI focus thing that locks on birds eyes for example?
Scott Stoness wrote:
R5 has better dynamic range at iso 100 than R5ii. So if you exclusively shooting landscape, its a better camera.
It also requires less noise reduction at iso 12k, for wildlife. So easier to cull and process.
The biggest gain to R5ii over R5 are clog2 (better video), precapture (birds, sports), and way faster sensor speed (<rolling shutter). However for most but sports and BIF, the R5 is close enough to R5II that its a bargain, because of its lower price.
As I said in my previous post, I shoot both landscape the wildlife. The higher dynamic range and lower noise would be great, but I'll have to weigh it against the additional AF features of the Mark ii.
Gary Udstrand wrote:
Thank you for the response. It is good info to know. I am kind of torn since I shoot landscapes and wildlife, one of my main reasons for the upgrade is the superior focusing systems in the newer cameras. I am sure that either would be a big step up for me. I was hoping the eye tracking worked well enough that it would be usable.
Do both cameras have the AI focus thing that locks on birds eyes for example?
If you are coming from a DSLR shooting landscape and wildlife, you will be blown away with the R5, and then the R5II would just be better for AF and fps if you are shooting very fast moving wildlife or BIF. I'm not a birder as I shoot a lot of portraits, but occasionally while in between shoots on location I'll point my camera at some birds, and yes the R5II will lock on better than the R5, and it will also track BIF better. However, you can still easily get the job done with the R5. The R5's did amazing for me on multiple African safaris when I had a chance to bring my R3's, but I left R3's at home because the R5 AF is more than adequate for small-large mammals and I wanted the resolution. I usually mix it up between the AI AF and traditional AF methods and the R5 produces great results. I was able to successfully shoot full speed cheetahs with the R5, so there's not much it can't handle, but you will get rolling shutter effects if you look closely in some scenes.
I would say if you are not budget limited, get the R5II and you'll feel like you are cheating and never miss, and you'll come home with tons of keepers and try to decide which ones you'll be throwing away. Or you wont' throw them away because they are all so good, and your storage needs will ballon. If you are budget limited, I would get (2) used R5's for a little bit more than an R5II and you'll still be blown away but it will miss more with less FPS, so less keepers for you to throw away than the R5II. R5II you can adjust FPS as well, so if you wanted to shoot 20 or less you can. You really can't go wrong with either camera.
If you are a pixel peeper, you might not like the noise of the R5II, so you might want to use both before deciding. Good luck.
I agree
The current pricing of all new cameras and lenses (not just canon) is crazy.
The irony is years ago in EF era when things were cheaper… I’d still have to buy things on credit.
Now older, everything paid off and healthy savings… I just cannot bring myself to pay these inflated prices…so I don’t.
The shots still get taken, and almost always come away with useable images… so am I really missing out??
I see lots of complaints about pricing, but I could argue that today's cameras and lenses are compellingly priced by historical standards.
For example, the Canon EOS 5D launched in 2005 at a price of $3,299. When adjusted for inflation, this is $5,420 in 2026 dollars. While seemingly expensive at $4,299 list, the R5 Mark II is actually cheaper in absolute terms and vastly more capable.
Some RF lenses may seem costly even after accounting for inflation, but most are superior to their EF counterparts both optically and in terms of features (like the addition of IS, faster apertures, or having macro capabilities). This arguably makes them good values in relative terms.
The ILC market is smaller and more niche than it was 15 or 20 years ago. Manufacturers cannot amortize their costs of lens development and production across as large an addressable market. Between the lingering effects of the pandemic, AI disruption, and global political instability, the cost of everything has burgeoned. Camera makers are not immune to this, and sometimes unit costs must rise.
All that is to say: I don't believe that Canon, Nikon, or Sony are "gouging" their customers any more than they have ever done in the past. Times have simply changed.
Gary Udstrand wrote:
As I said in my previous post, I shoot both landscape the wildlife. The higher dynamic range and lower noise would be great, but I'll have to weigh it against the additional AF features of the Mark ii.
Thanks for your help! :-)
I think its important to note that the upgrades of the R52 are pretty significant, whereas the modest decrease in image DR and noise handling are almost imperceptible. Side by side it's very hard to see the difference without breaking out the full screen 100% crops, etc.
Obviously each person is going to have their own priorities, but I can assure you that if the two were priced exactly the same, only a very small minority would chose the R5 over the R52.
garyvot wrote:
I see lots of complaints about pricing, but I could argue that today's cameras and lenses are compellingly priced by historical standards.
For example, the Canon EOS 5D launched in 2005 at a price of $3,299. When adjusted for inflation, this is $5,420 in 2026 dollars. While seemingly expensive at $4,299 list, the R5 Mark II is actually cheaper in absolute terms and vastly more capable.
Some RF lenses may seem costly even after accounting for inflation, but most are superior to their EF counterparts both optically and in terms of features (like the addition of IS, faster apertures, or having macro capabilities). This arguably makes them good values in relative terms.
The ILC market is smaller and more niche than it was 15 or 20 years ago. Manufacturers cannot amortize their costs of lens development and production across as large an addressable market. Between the lingering effects of the pandemic, AI disruption, and global political instability, the cost of everything has burgeoned. Camera makers are not immune to this, and sometimes unit costs must rise.
All that is to say: I don't believe that Canon, Nikon, or Sony are "gouging" their customers any more than they have ever done in the past. Times have simply changed. ...Show more →
I'm not sure anyone is gouging either. But the way the world is working right now, everything has gone up in price faster than at any other time in my now long life. This drives up camera prices, just like everything else. Labor, resources, etc. EG: A 70-200mm f/2.8 being 3x what it cost me last time I bought an OEM.
I don't think the manufacturers need defending, it's just the cold reality.
CyberDyne wrote:
I'm not sure anyone is gouging either. But the way the world is working right now, everything has gone up in price faster than at any other time in my now long life. This drives up camera prices, just like everything else. Labor, resources, etc. EG: A 70-200mm f/2.8 being 3x what it cost me last time I bought an OEM.
I don't think the manufacturers need defending, it's just the cold reality.
As painful as prices seem, it feels like things were sorta 'cheaper than they should be' for a bit and we've just caught up so fast that it stings more. For reference, the OG Canon 70-200L f2.8 was $1350 MSRP in 1995. That sits right at $3K adjusted for inflation, so the newest versions are not out of line. The original 5D at $3300 in 2005 makes the R5II seem like a bargain.
That said, for the long foreseeable future I'll be bargain shopping on the 2nd hand market. Much like I have for most of my photography journey. My commitment level to the hobby can't justify $4K cameras and $3K zoom lenses when so much good stuff exists for a fraction of that price. And the gap between a new camera at $4K vs. what you can get for 1/3 that price second hand is smaller than ever.
My needs (and wants) don't lust for the latest and greatest any more. 15 years ago I was always wanting more camera than I could afford at the time. Being stuck with the 9 point AF and sub-4 FPS of the the 5DII, it was tough not to want what the 1Dx offered in comparison. That's changed now. My needs haven't really changed, just that the tech has caught up and surpassed my needs without it requiring the stupidly expensive bodies to get it.
Due to the worse dynamic range (and yes, it’s noticeable), more jerky IBIS, Clog 2 - which isn’t much improved due to the noise and dynamic range issues…
Sold my R52 after a couple months.
I think the original R5 is the better camera. It’s just an excellent all rounder.
Apr 20, 2026 at 01:23 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
ronno wrote:
Due to the worse dynamic range (and yes, it’s noticeable), more jerky IBIS, Clog 2 - which isn’t much improved due to the noise and dynamic range issues…
Sold my R52 after a couple months.
I think the original R5 is the better camera. It’s just an excellent all rounder.
The R5 really only has a small (just over a third of a stop dynamic range) advantage over the R5 II when you are either shooting with EFCS or in slow speed and shooting below ISO 200. That can make the R5 slightly better for some types of shooting (e.g., landscapes) where the resolution of these cameras is appreciated but not the speed.
If you are using these cameras for the speed, however, the R5II will not have lower dynamic range in high speed mechanical shutter mode and the R5 II is a lot better in electronic shutter mode with higher bit depth, less motion distortion, and higher frames per second. There is a small fifth of a stop dynamic range advantage of the R5 at ISO 800 and above, but I can't imagine anyone trading off the R5 II advantages of the electronic shutter for this very small DR advantage when shooting in electronic shutter.
