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

Mike Engles wrote:

Because I once tested them both in earlier versions. The MK 1 Canon was dreadful and really from what I have seen from reviews the MK 2 not not much better.Whereas the Nikons always were very well regarded and it was my impression when I tested one, albeit some time ago.

Could you give some specifics? What did you find that was dreadful about the R6, and what are you referring to in R6ii reviews that is so bad?

This is just an opinion but the R5 is still quite state of the art and quite a bit superior to the R6 Mk 2 if you deeply crop your images or shoot high resolution video.

Firmware 1.6 has essentially eliminated the R5's 4K and 8K overheating issues (8K raw can overheat at about 40+ minutes). There is still a 30 minute limit on continuous record time on the R5 that has been removed on the R6 Mk 2.

The Canon R6 Mk 2 should have a bit better low light performance (less noise) than the R5 (about 3/4 of 2 stop) but this noise difference is easily eliminated when needed with the Topaz DeNoise application.

If you don't crop images deeply, I generally believe the R6 or R6Mk2 is a great option.

If you shoot wildlife such as birds in flight and need to crop deeply, the Canon R5 is likely the better choice.

As I understand it, the R5 is still a top seller  against competition in Japan and globally. Further its mechanical shutter life is rated at 500,000 vs 300,000 for the R6, which may or may not matter to you.

Since Canon has essentially eliminated the R5's overheating constraints and the reality that the R5 is still quite competitive with Sony and Nikon offerings, I'm not sure I see a strong motivation for Canon to release the R5 Mk 2 immediately. They may chose to extend the life a bit longer (pro cameras used to be kept in the market a bit longer than enthusiast cameras).

If your budget is constrained or if you enjoy changing camera bodies often, the R6 is a superb choice. If you keep camera bodies a long time, the R5 might serve you a bit longer as you may need the extra resolution over time.

You can't really lose selecting the R6, R6 Mk2 or the R5.

SurettePhotography wrote:

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all the wonderful advice.

I went to a local Henry's this weekend to try out a R5 or R6. They only had the R5 in stock to play with. What I didn't realize is they are having a big sale at the moment. Up to 30% off bodies and lens up to a maximum of $600 CAD. For the R5 that's $600 off, for the F/4 glass that's $600 off.

So the question is this? R5 or R6 Mark II with the 70-200mm F/4L IS USM RF lens. I'm questioning the 24-105mm F/4L IS RF Lens because of the overlap 70-105mm. I'm going to have to research alternatives. I know there are more MP in the R5, but what else for the price difference?

Thanks again!

Hi there,

I switched to Canon RF system some months ago for action/sports (hobby). I shoot outdoor (soccer and windsurf/wing foil) and indoors (handball).

I am very happy to have chosen the 70200/2.8 over the f4 version. I shoot f at 2.8 all the time.

I choose the R5 since I thought it gives be the ability to crop if needed and some times I switched to DX when my lens was not long enough. However noise kicks in at 3200/6400 ISO. So depending on your needs of resolution, maybe the R6II might be the better solution.

I think the R5 also offers a better EVF and some other advantages (top display...) over R6(II), but only you know what is more important.

paratom wrote:

SurettePhotography wrote:

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all the wonderful advice.

I went to a local Henry's this weekend to try out a R5 or R6. They only had the R5 in stock to play with. What I didn't realize is they are having a big sale at the moment. Up to 30% off bodies and lens up to a maximum of $600 CAD. For the R5 that's $600 off, for the F/4 glass that's $600 off.

So the question is this? R5 or R6 Mark II with the 70-200mm F/4L IS USM RF lens. I'm questioning the 24-105mm F/4L IS RF Lens because of the overlap 70-105mm. I'm going to have to research alternatives. I know there are more MP in the R5, but what else for the price difference?

Thanks again!

Hi there,

I switched to Canon RF system some months ago for action/sports (hobby). I shoot outdoor (soccer and windsurf/wing foil) and indoors (handball).

I am very happy to have chosen the 70200/2.8 over the f4 version. I shoot f at 2.8 all the time.

I choose the R5 since I thought it gives be the ability to crop if needed and some times I switched to DX when my lens was not long enough. However noise kicks in at 3200/6400 ISO. So depending on your needs of resolution, maybe the R6II might be the better solution.

I think the R5 also offers a better EVF and some other advantages (top display...) over R6(II), but only you know what is more important.

Wow, this thread is all what I need! I am also in the same boat, will be switching from 5D Mark III to a R5 or R6 Mark II.

Still debating between both, hard. Besides the AF, I think the 45MP will be a huge upgrade over the 5D Mark III (Since it has like 22.3 MP). I do mostly landscape, but I don’t often crop, because I… couldn’t! Haha.

I’ll be heading to Japan in 2 weeks, so I am still waiting for the final reviews of the R6 Mark II. D

For the noise to kick in at 3200/6400, isn’t that similar to DSLR? Maybe Topaz DeNoise AI can help?

Yes, noise of R5 is not bad compared tomolder sensors, but there still we be more than with a modern 24mp sensor at high ISO.

I think for landscape I would really choose the R5 because of the higher pixel count, at least if you also plan big big prints.

After an exhaustive amount of research, I decided on the Canon R6 Mark II and the RF 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8.

I ordered the Canon R6 Mark II and the RF 70-200 f/4 along with the RF 70-200 f/2.8 on November 29th and received it on December 4th.

After some initial tests with both lenses, I decided to keep the RF 70-200 f/4 and return the RF 70-200 f/2.8.

My primary reason for returning the RF 70-200 f/2.8 was the weight difference compared to the RF 70-200 f/4. It was significantly substantial for me.

Secondly, I couldn't justify the price difference.

I bought the RF 70-200 f/4 for CAD 1,999.99 (after a CAD 400 discount), and the RF 70-200 f/2.8 is CAD 3,499.99, both before taxes. A difference of CAD 1,500. The difference might now go toward the RF 24-105 f/4 when it goes on sale.

After shooting on a Nikon for many years, and Canon before that, there is a lot to get used to, but I'm impressed with the amount of customization I can do.

Thanks, everyone, for your input.

Well done, I missed this thread but looking through it quickly now I am sure you made the right decision.  Enjoy!

My kids play all kinds of sports ice hockey lacrosse basketball soccer baseball and I'm currently shooting an R5 and various lenses.

For general purpose I would get either the R5 or the R6 or the R6 Mark II and a 24 105 F4 or even the 24-105 STM which is nice and light. Both are going to keep you a happy for a while get one or two fast primes and you're all set.

For your baseball get the Canon RF 100-400 currently selling for $499 in the United States and for your hockey get either a used EF 70-200 or the 70 200 F4.

Today's cameras can shoot at extraordinarily high ISO. Let the camera do the noise reduction and you're going to have really nice results. You just don't have to worry about noise these days so I really think an RF 70 to 200 F4 is probably going to work for hockey in all but the absolute darkest dingiest ranks of which there aren't very many left these days at least where I am in the USA