Canon R5 or R6 Mark II or something else altogether...

Hi everyone,

I'm looking to switch my DSLR kit to the mirrorless world and have been researching the Canon R5 vs. the new Canon R6 Mark II. I would be looking at the following.

Canon R5 ($5,199 CAD)
RF 24–105mm F4 L IS USM ($1,749 CAD)

or

Canon R6 Mark II ($3,299 CAD)
RF 24–105mm F4 L IS USM ($1,749 CAD)
RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM ($1,999 CAD)

R5 kit - $6,948 CAD
R6 Mark II kit - $7,047 CAD (+ $99 CAD over R5 kit)

For the R5 kit, I would add on the RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM later. I'm not concerned with video, as I am more interested in photography for the sports I shoot.

• I currently shoot with the following Nikon kit:
  Nikon D750
  AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
  AF-S NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR

I know very little about the Canon mirrorless system as I'm currently doing my research. I am also looking at the Nikon Z 7 Mark II, and I've looked into Sony as well, but I'm a bit overwhelmed with all the various versions of the same model, so I am unsure what would compete with the R5 or R6 Mark II.

I am looking for feedback from those using either camera for sports (I know the R6 Mark II is new). Besides the extra megapixels in the R5, what else would I be giving up with the R6 Mark II?

Thanks in advance

SurettePhotography wrote:

Hi everyone,

I'm looking to switch my DSLR kit to the mirrorless world and have been researching the Canon R5 vs. the new Canon R6 Mark II. I would be looking at the following.

Canon R5 ($5,199 CAD)
RF 24–105mm F4 L IS USM ($1,749 CAD)

or

Canon R6 Mark II ($3,299 CAD)
RF 24–105mm F4 L IS USM ($1,749 CAD)
RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM ($1,999 CAD)

R5 kit - $6,948 CAD
R6 Mark II kit - $7,047 CAD (+ $99 CAD over R5 kit)

For the R5 kit, I would add on the RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM later. I'm not concerned with video, as I am more interested in photography for the sports I shoot.

• I currently shoot with the following Nikon kit:
  Nikon D750
  AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
  AF-S NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR

I know very little about the Canon mirrorless system as I'm currently doing my research. I am also looking at the Nikon Z 7 Mark II, and I've looked into Sony as well, but I'm a bit overwhelmed with all the various versions of the same model, so I am unsure what would compete with the R5 or R6 Mark II.

I am looking for feedback from those using either camera for sports (I know the R6 Mark II is new). Besides the extra megapixels in the R5, what else would I be giving up with the R6 Mark II?

Thanks in advance

I'd always go for the option that gives you more glass, especially since you seem to have no reason to get the R5 vs the R6 II. I'm not sure I'd get those two lenses though. The 70-200 yes, but the other seems to duplicate too much of its range.

SurettePhotography wrote:

PAntunes wrote:

What kind of sports do you shoot?
And what are you looking for? Do you need the reach of the lenses, do you need brighter lenses, faster frame rates, what kind of resolution are you interested in?

I shoot ice hockey and baseball for the most part. Most arena's lighting is horrible, and I have to primarily shoot with my f/4 Nikon glass. The range is actually perfect for hockey, the 70-200mm f/4 would be extra reach.

However for baseball, 200mm is not enough, and I would typically use the 300mm Nikon lens I have. Faster frame rates than the D750 is a must, not overly concerned about resolution. f/2.8 lens are out of my budget.

EF lenses work splendidly on my R6.. i see on ebay secand hand  70-200F2.8Lismkii go for <900GBP

a 400 F5.6L is £500...you will have to check what frame rate you get with these lenses as some EF lens won't give you full FPS

if you get a 1.4X extender as well for the price of a R 70-200f4L you will have 70-200F2.8  A 98-280f4,  A 400f5.6 and a 560F8

.
.
.
.
Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me it is bad I know it is .....................................................................................................
the EOS M is not dead and wont be for a long time ....as long as you don't want a flagship camera with a VF...if that's the case it died sometime ago
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
.........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
.....................................................................................................
If you wait for a camera that will  tick all your boxes ....by then you will have more boxes to tick..... so the wait continues .....David Appleton

SurettePhotography wrote:

Hi everyone,

I'm looking to switch my DSLR kit to the mirrorless world and have been researching the Canon R5 vs. the new Canon R6 Mark II. I would be looking at the following.

Canon R5 ($5,199 CAD)
RF 24–105mm F4 L IS USM ($1,749 CAD)

or

Canon R6 Mark II ($3,299 CAD)
RF 24–105mm F4 L IS USM ($1,749 CAD)
RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM ($1,999 CAD)

R5 kit - $6,948 CAD
R6 Mark II kit - $7,047 CAD (+ $99 CAD over R5 kit)

For the R5 kit, I would add on the RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM later. I'm not concerned with video, as I am more interested in photography for the sports I shoot.

• I currently shoot with the following Nikon kit:
  Nikon D750
  AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
  AF-S NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR

I know very little about the Canon mirrorless system as I'm currently doing my research. I am also looking at the Nikon Z 7 Mark II, and I've looked into Sony as well, but I'm a bit overwhelmed with all the various versions of the same model, so I am unsure what would compete with the R5 or R6 Mark II.

I am looking for feedback from those using either camera for sports (I know the R6 Mark II is new). Besides the extra megapixels in the R5, what else would I be giving up with the R6 Mark II?

Thanks in advance

The R6 Mark II would be a pretty strong candidate IMHO.  In fact, it’s going to be my own event/ action/ sports camera (replacing my very capable R6 Mark I).

The R5 will give you more MP (aka more reach), and it has a larger buffer and faster buffer clearing (plus some other improvements).  But you may not need these, esp if you’re not a birder   .

The RF 24-105 f/4 is a pretty capable lens, with reasonably fast AF.  Good IQ.  It covers a lot of ground.

Canon doesn’t have an RF 70-300 yet, but does have a nice EF version.  The RF 70-200 lenses are excellent (but for baseball 300mm would be a lot better).

I’d venture if you have DxO’s Deep Prime noise reduction, you might find the lightweight 100-400 suitable for your field sports, but this depends on your output requirements.

I really love the RF 70-200 f/2.8 for sports, but it is pricey.  It’s so sharp though that you can crop it a fair amount and still retain a nice image.

Well, best of luck to you!

R2

Mike Engles wrote:

From what I know about the 24-105, it is no match for the 24-120.

in what way?

Avenger20 wrote:

simjn wrote:

Give it 3 or 4 months when we see a R5 mk ii come out. A minor update like the R6mk ii but with the new accessory shoe and other tweeks. The R6 mk ii came out of nowhere, maybe only 2 months notice on the rumour sites.

Indeed, most likely the R5 will get an update next year for this reason. A 3-year update cycle seems reasonable.

There are possible explanations for the fast upgrade of the R6 which don't imply it will be necessarily the same for the R5.

Henrys has $600 off the R5?

Deanna