Unfortunately the Lumix S5ii's sensor isn't fast enough to do 4k 60 without a crop. Panasonic said that if they were to put in a faster reading sensor, it would raise the price of the S5ii. It's the same with the S5iix. Still I would probably go for the S5ii over the R8. The only thing imo the R8 has over the S5ii is the faster burst rate and the faster sensor but apart from that I think the S5ii is better in every other way
I believe the R8 is a tech demo camera. It’s purpose is to give people a limited demo of what the R6II does. It is effectively an EOS RP with an R6II sensor inside. It does not have a proper mechanical shutter (efcs only), and the 40fps burst speeds are limited by the much smaller buffer, and single SD media slot. It is also very likely to overheat if you try and shoot 4k60 video in warm climates.
at £1,699 body only in the UK it is £700 more expensive than an EOS RP, and sits only £200 cheaper than an EOS R6, or £300 cheaper than an S5II. Both far more capable and fully featured cameras.
In the US it's a $500 difference but I have trouble putting into real terms why this camera would be worth it for people. Not trying to be biased - I know this is an L mount forum, but I as a person who just recently went through an EXTENSIVE research process to figure out my next camera coming from a Canon 6d mk ii - these are my glaring issues with the camera:
-single card slot
-no ibis
-older evf resolution (the one the s5 got criticized for 3 years ago)
-tiny battery that dies after 60 minutes or so of recording 4k24
-no AF joystick
-micro HDMI and no external raw
-the high speed burst is limited to electronic shutter and 12 bit raws
-kit lens is a 24-50 4.5-6.3??
so I'm parsing all this through my filter of "okay who is this camera actually for?" It's an "entry level" full frame camera - which I believe is just marketing mumbo jumbo from yesteryear lead to insinuate that you somehow graduate from lesser sensors to the real deal.
For the casual photo shooter - who needs an ultra light, low battery capacity camera with no ibis that can shoot really fast e-shutter but not mechanical shutter? I'm seriously struggling to picture these scenarios where this is the optimized camera for you that justifies the price. I mean you could grab a used a6600, xt4, a7iii, or even r7 and get the card slots, ibis, and other features for less money. Or you could pay a couple hundred more and get the fuji xt5 with high res sensors 15fps mechanical burst, ibis, dual card slots, better evf, better battery and so on.
For video - I could see this being a great studio type vlogging camera - but in other applications we're running into some major hiccups. IF you want to use it for like action videography - well you'll need to mount it to gimbal or a tripod which is extra money. If you want to rig it up, well you have the micro HDMI to contend with and fewer video features than an s5 I or ii - and you'll still have the small battery, so then you're running external power to your rigged up r8 which is weighed down with a monitor and on a single card slot for the sake of having 4k60 uncropped with AF.
For vlogging - you're going to be applying a ton of stabilization in post which negates your cropless 60p to some degree.
For any pro work, the single card slot alone is a non-starter for most. For any kind of new pro photographer, you have the super expensive RF glass then to tackle because you're not shooting anything professionally on a 24-50 4.5-6.3. If you want to start out shooting weddings and are willing to roll the dice on the card slot, well then you can go out and grab yourself a 24-70 2.8 RF for $2200 - so now you have a $3700 kit with no data redundancy and your main advantage is your high burst and AF which then you're having to worry about light flicker and you're losing some color data in the compression. Or you're doing portraits and you want to save some money, so you have your 50 1.8 and now you've lose your weather resistance through the lens mount, you're shooting on a budget lens with not the best characteristics, and you'd probably have been better off with a cheaper camera and nicer lens.
Maybe it's an aspiring pro sports or wildlife shooter who can't afford the ultra expensive RF telephoto zooms so their option is the budget-friendly 100-400 5.6-8 - well there's no IBIS so you're going to be CRANKING that ISO which is really pushing the benefits of full frame anyways - why not just get the r7 with dual card slots and ibis for the same price that will even give you bigger reach on the same lens?
People are actually arguing back at me in camera discussions saying "no but you're getting great performance for the money" and I keep asking "performance for what??" Give me practical situations where these pros outweigh these cons for this dollar amount - maybe I'm not in touch with your average "entry-level full frame" shooter. To me, this seems to be a very niche camera for someone with very specific needs because it is so limited.
