p.1 #1 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
Hi guys, I’m looking to move to Canon and have around a $5,000 budget. I’m currently deciding between the R5 Mark II and R6 Mark II and I’m having a hard time justifying the price difference
I know the R5 II gives me the higher-resolution 45MP sensor, faster readout, better EVF, and more flexibility for cropping but I’m wondering how much of that actually matters in real world shooting compared to the R6 II’s 24MP sensor
For those who have used both, which one would you pick today and why? Is the R5 II worth the extra money, or would you put the difference toward better glass?
p.1 #2 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
What is your glass budget and does that impact the camera budget?
What cameras do you have for backup(s)?
If you need reach the R5 II is more croppable so you would not need such long lenses as with the lower-res R6 II. The R6 III might be a good compromise.
p.1 #3 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
It depends. What do you shoot? I would actually look at a lightly used R5 unless you shoot 100% action, but even then the R5 is no slouch.
Sep 24, 2026 at 11:05 AM
ViolenceFinder Offline • [X]
p.1 #4 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
EB-1 wrote:
What is your glass budget and does that impact the camera budget?
What cameras do you have for backup(s)?
If you need reach the R5 II is more croppable so you would not need such long lenses as with the lower-res R6 II. The R6 III might be a good compromise.
EBH
I’d like to keep the whole setup around $5k I don’t really have a backup body right now so this would basically be my main setup. I don’t need a ton of reach mostly everyday shooting travel and portraits
p.1 #5 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
ViolenceFinder wrote:
I’d like to keep the whole setup around $5k I don’t really have a backup body right now so this would basically be my main setup. I don’t need a ton of reach mostly everyday shooting travel and portraits
Looks like you have two accounts and you accidentally responded with the wrong account....
p.1 #6 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
If your whole budget is 5K, I’d go for the R6 II and use the rest for glass. Unless you absolutely need the extra resolution. And I mean, you print huge and look at those prints up close. Or you regularly crop heavily.
The R6 II can make outstanding prints, even large, and yes the R5 II is a higher end camera, but it isn’t worth the extra at the expense of glass. You can get a good set of lenses with the remainder of your budget.
p.1 #7 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
If your use case does not involve a lot of fast action, I agree with the sentiment to look for a lightly used R5, which can be had for <$2k, then use the rest for glass.
p.1 #8 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
The only thing that would make me personally wary of the original R5 is if one wanted to use lenses like the 45mm f/1.2 STM or the 100mm f/2.8L Macro, both of which show focus shift at medium apertures. This isn't an issue on newer bodies, as you can set the camera to focus at shooting aperture, which completely eliminates the problem. With older bodies, it will always focus wide open, which could lead to some missed focus with lenses that have focus shift. Otherwise, it's a great body.
For my own use, I've had high resolution bodies (and have a 5DsR now to complement my R6 II kit), but ultimately, I don't really need the resolution, and I've found that 24-30MP is a great sweet spot, with outstanding quality and plenty of resolution for printing large, without the expense and storage overhead that comes with the higher resolution cameras.
You could also split the difference and get an R6 III, which gets you 32.5 MP, so a bit extra over the R6 II, plus the latest AF algorithms and features.
p.1 #10 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
The focus shift on the R5 mentioned above is a non issue if you shoot the lens wide open or near to it, and if not, there are workarounds. It's a total non-issue if you know what you are doing and I would not write off an R5 because of a very minor issue on a couple lenses at certain apertures that have a workaround as a solution. I currently shoot with two R5II's and would recommend a used R5 over any other body in the lineup for best value and best all around camera when on a budget.
p.1 #11 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
Wolf_P wrote:
I have the R5 mark 2 but I don't know how to set the camera to focus at shooting aperture. Can somebody share information how to do that?
Look for the Exposure + DOF setting in the red menu under Display Simulation.
However, if you happen to shoot ES mode in AI servo you don't need to worry about this anyway as the camera will focus with the shooting aperture in your burst. Same goes with the R5.
p.1 #12 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
Wolf_P wrote:
I have the R5 mark 2 but I don't know how to set the camera to focus at shooting aperture. Can somebody share information how to do that?
Camera tab, towards the end (on my R6 II it's section 9), "Display Simulation"
In there, set it to Exposure+DOF.
That's it.
And yes, of course focus shift isn't an issue if you shoot wide open (the whole thing is that focus shifts as you stop down). And sure, it isn't a massive issue, but it does affect two of my 7 AF lenses to varying degrees, so it is nice to not worry about it. I have previously owned an R5 and it's an outstanding body, but it's still worth noting given the improvements that have come since.
p.1 #13 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
kerrymattson wrote:
For those who have used both, which one would you pick today and why? Is the R5 II worth the extra money, or would you put the difference toward better glass?
What do you shoot?
In my case with sport, yes, the R5II was worth the extra money. I personally didn't care about 45MP, though in hindsight admit it is nice for some applications. Simply put, the R5II is more responsive in pretty much every metric. Stacked sensor means much less rolling shutter effects and you can shoot e-shutter in typical residential/commercial indoor lighting without getting banding, plus flash sync in e-shutter, though only up to 1/160 without going into HSS. Stacked sensor and probably processor performance combined means a more responsive camera than the R6II. Faster AF acquisition, more certain subject recognition/lock/tracking, barely any EVF lag/blackout. IMO the R5II is very, very similar to the R1 in these parameters, though IMO the R1 is still faster/better. But not by a lot. R5II vs. R6II also has deeper buffer and faster CFe card slot to clear said buffer. Proper pre-capture implementation. Peripheral advantages include better build quality, viewfinder/EVF, certain minor niceties such as ability to save/load camera configuration settings to a memory card if needing to uniquely configure the camera for multiple scenarios - saves a lot of menu diving after the first round of configurations.
In my case, I transitioned from 1DXII to R6II and it was generally positive. I previously tried the R6 and R5 and found both had some EVF lag that annoyed me while the R6II was better enough not to really annoy me, but also not good enough to be unnoticeable. I had the chance to try a preproduction R1 back to back against the R6II at a motorsports event and it was like feeling fully liberated from all previous camera-induced encumbrances. Further evaluation of the R5II in consideration of the R1 revealed to me that it was very close in performance while providing some additional flexibility with respect to physical configuration options (with or without the BG-R20 battery grip) and very usable 17MP APS-C crop for specific applications.
R5II compared to better glass: really depends on what you're doing. Just get the R5II and the glass you really want on a line of credit and pay it off as quickly as possible. Buy once, cry once. YOLO
p.1 #16 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
When I sold my Sony A7RIII and came back to Canon I was debating a new R6II or used R5. I went with the R6II but I missed the higher mp's of the Sony and eventually sold the R6II and bought a used R5 and have been happier. I would go with a used R5 or R5II and a couple of nice lenses if you choose the R5.
p.1 #17 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
ViolenceFinder wrote:
I’d like to keep the whole setup around $5k I don’t really have a backup body right now so this would basically be my main setup. I don’t need a ton of reach mostly everyday shooting travel and portraits
I guess the question has already been answered well enough. I agree with others that you should keep the body cost low and put more into the glass. Most likely you will upgrade cameras more often than lenses.
p.1 #18 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
I will add a second option and I think it’s a solid option, and that is the Canon R6 Mark III. My two main bodies are the Canon R6 Mark II and Mark III. I shoot both video and photo and the video benefits of the version III are incredible. No comparison against the Mark II. I have seen in the buy and sell for the Mark.III a couple times vs $2799 retail. I do have the 5D but it’s auto focus capabilities bother me and I rarely use it. I guess I should put it up on the buy and sell board ask 100 bucks.
p.1 #19 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
macentropist wrote:
I will add a second option and I think it’s a solid option, and that is the Canon R6 Mark III. My two main bodies are the Canon R6 Mark II and Mark III. I shoot both video and photo and the video benefits of the version III are incredible. No comparison against the Mark II. I have seen in the buy and sell for the Mark.III a couple times vs $2799 retail. I do have the 5D but it’s auto focus capabilities bother me and I rarely use it. I guess I should put it up on the buy and sell board ask 100 bucks.
I'd be interested in your opinion about the R6III advantages over the R6II in respect to stills rather than video. Ignoring the resolution difference, have you noticed any performance improvements with the III over the II? Particularly around AF speed/responsiveness and EVF blackout/lag. Any other 'quality of life' improvements?
I held out for the III because I don't really need 45MP most of the time, but got the R5II instead once it was confirmed the III would not be a stacked sensor.
p.1 #20 · Canon R5 II vs R6 II — Is the R5 II Really Worth the Extra Money?
I recently upgraded from my 5d3 to the R5 while the AI is not in the same league as the newer bodies it made sense for my needs. For the $5k budget I paired it up with the 100-500RF. That to me is a killer combo.
