OK so I sold it and bought the R8 with that expensive 24 to 105 lens. Yes it's a beautiful combination but it just doesn't have the feel in your hands that that rock solid 5D MK 4 had. That camera is going to go down in Canon history as one of the best DSLRS they ever produced. Just had to say it.......
I specialize in Food and Lifestyle images and most of my projects are shot on a tripod. That said, I bought two 5DIV's in '17 just before the RP was released. Since then, I've repurchased a 1Dx because I like the body and the images they produce. If I weren't running a business and just buying the latest gear I probably would have explored the R5 like a dentist buying Hasselblads years ago.
I feel the same way. Went from 5DIV to R5II and miss the feel, simplicity and ergonomics of DSLR. Since then, I added back 5DII and am thinking about getting 5DIV again as well. If I need FPS, fast and reliable AF with eye AF the R5II is unbeatable, but if I just want to enjoy photography I reach for DSLR, SLR, Leica.
I think the lenses are part of it as well. EF L lenses feel great and look great, RF lenses less so. When I hold a DSLR I feel like I'm holding a fine photographic instrument. When I'm holding R5II with RF lens, feel like I'm holding a computer toy.
I did not expect this when moving to R5II, thought everything would be better, which in many ways is, but it's just not as fun or pleasant.
The 5D IV would have been better released about a year earlier. The D850 was only a year later with a far better sensor. The 5D IV was good compared to Canon bodies with the pre-2016 tech sensors, but 7FPS and CF card were not. Like many people, I used the 5DsR and 5D IV combo in the late 2010s prior to getting the R5.
You can use most all EF lenses with the simple EF-RF adapter. Many lenses still are not available in RF.
Is there a definitive consensus that the EF lemses produce as good an image or better using that adapter because there are always someone that interest me on buy and sell and the prices are so good now. And by the way, my 2000 Toyota 4 runner continues to serve me just fine thank you. Yes I have to turn around and look what's behind me when I back up but I actually can do that.
I just sold my R6 and went back to using a 5D2 and soon, 5D4. I still have my R100 and RF 600 f/11 & 800 f/11 lenses since there are no EF counterparts. The 800 rivals my 4'' Mak scope with a similar f/l (1280 vs 1300)
Jim
I've also begun shooting with DSLRs again, picking up first a 5D II and then a 5DsR....something about the feel is just wonderful, not to mention the value. While I shoot Nikon mirrorless now, for DSLRs I've always preferred Canon's ergonomics and way of doing things. I thought about getting a 5D IV, but the 5Ds R makes more sense for what I'm shooting with it.
I don't know about what brands have better sensors because I've always shot with Canon but I can tell you that I had zero complaints about how the 5D mark 4 images looked. I photographed a number of family related events like birthdays, Christmases etc and distributed those photos. Everybody loved them.
I have R6/2 and I'm not going back to original 6D. That technology leap was too big :-) The only thing I miss these days is the built-in GPS. I'd still prefer OVF, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the AF for that. So R6/2 it is.
I still have a 5D IV, and it looks at me forlornly from the shelf. Great image quality to be sure, but the comparison in shooting performance between it and the R5s I currently have is, well, no comparison. The R5 just nails focus, and there is no worrying whether a lens/body combination is "calibrated" since AF occurs on the main sensor. There is essentially no scenario in which I would choose the 5D IV over the R5, period.
Yes, I would love a high-megapixel "landscape" camera, but if I really need more than 45 Mpx, I can usually stitch a pano. Some effort to be sure, and not always possible, but where really high-megapixel images are desired, that's the way to go.
5D series to R8 isn’t a fair comparison. The R8 is more in Rebel territory.
All the other comparisons, sure, if you like the DSLRs they’re fine and a bargain, but personally I think the R5 easily beats the 5Ds. They’re more complicated, but most of that you can ignore or set and forget.
johnvanr wrote:
5D series to R8 isn’t a fair comparison. The R8 is more in Rebel territory.
All the other comparisons, sure, if you like the DSLRs they’re fine and a bargain, but personally I think the R5 easily beats the 5Ds. They’re more complicated, but most of that you can ignore or set and forget.
Oh absolutely no doubt that modern mirrorless bodies best these DSLRs in most ways. That's not really a question. But I do think too many people think "oh, that's 10 years old, it can't possibly be worth using any more", and in reality they of course work every bit as well as they did when they were released - and that is, very, very well. Given the prices now, it's certainly potentially worth looking into. I managed to pick up a 5DsR, a 5D II, a top-flight ultra-wide (16-35/2.8L III), an excellent telephoto (70-300L) and a good standard zoom (24-105 STM) for a price about smack dab in the middle between an R5 and an R5 II by themselves (A bit over $3,000). An all RF outfit with similar capabilities with an R5 II, with say an R8 backup, would run around $11,500.
Sure, the RF kit is going to be more capable overall, but you do pay for it.
johnvanr wrote:
5D series to R8 isn’t a fair comparison. The R8 is more in Rebel territory.
All the other comparisons, sure, if you like the DSLRs they’re fine and a bargain, but personally I think the R5 easily beats the 5Ds. They’re more complicated, but most of that you can ignore or set and forget.
The 5DsR IQ is better than the R5/R5 II other than maybe DR. Most of my static landscape work was with pan-stitching of the 5DsR from 2015-2020 but the AF bracketing of the R5/R5 II allows for larger pans (more rows/coumns). That more than compensates for the lower res and blurry filter of the R5 series, but creates 5-10x more data.
I've had every numbered 5D and loved the image quality with the L zooms. With each increase in resolution the pixel level IQ remained the same. I've also had various of the XXD bodies starting with the 10D as a supplement for reach. I experimented with an R7 kit which led me to sell all my APS-C gear and buy a 100-500. I did one wildlife trip with the 5D4 and R7, came home and sold my EF gear for an R5 kit.
I was really attached to my 5D4 and slow to switch to the R mount cameras preferring an optical viewfinder. The R5 had been out for over two years before I switched and I skipped the R entirely. The 5D4 lured me with its f8 AF meaning I could use a 1.4x on the 100-400 and thus didn't need to carry a second heavy body. The R5 with its 45 MP and 100-500 means I don't need a 1.4x and weighs over a pound less. The IQ of the R kit is outstanding and its tracking is a revolution - common knowledge. The 5D4 and EF L lenses were great. But, just as I have no nostalgia for film or vinyl records I have no desire to go back to flapping mirrors as one poster used to annoy me by saying.
I have no issue with others' preferences so this is not a criticism, just my feelings regarding the 5D4 v the R5. Cheers.
