drsnoopy wrote:
Canon_Guy wrote:
Unless you really need the extra Mpix count for really large prints I would go for R6 mkII. It is better camera in most aspects than the R5 except the resolution and you can have it "now" unlike the R5 mkII.
I think most people would have been happier if the R6ii had 30MP. 30MP seemed optimal in the 5D4 and R, especially for landscape. I know the 1DX ii and iii had 24MP and were popular for sports and wildlife, but often used with expensive big whites, filling the frame with the subject. Any cropping soon exposes the limitations of 24MP. Personally I’m very happy with the R5’s 45MP, both for landscape (high resolution) and wildlife (100-500, cropping if needed is no problem).
I actually had the R6 Mark ii with the RF 24-105 L in my cart at B&H ready to buy it when something told me to go look at the R5 page one more time. As much as I loved the idea of 45 MP, I just could not bring myself to justify the very large additional cost. But then, as I went to the R5 page, I noticed that they had just put up a lightly used R5 (9+ condition) with the same lens in their "more buying choices" section. This lightly used R5 was still more than the R6ii, but not as much more (I think the kit was about $450 more). At that point, I knew if I was ever going to get an R5 this was the time, so I quickly put this R5 in my cart and deleted the R6ii. Had the R6ii been 30MP, like my much loved 5DIV, I likely would have gone ahead an bought the R6ii.
I was extremely happy with the condition of the R5 when it arrived. It was like new. The only minor issues were the fact that the camera came with the older LP-E6N battery which was nearly dead, and didn't have the cable or cable holder that would be packed with a new R5 camera. I sent B&H a note asking about this and to my delight, they immediately sent me a new LP-E6NH and also the cable at no charge.