Deciding between the R6 Mark II or the R5?

I recently bought a lightly used R5, but had the R6II in my cart at B&H at the time.  Had they not had a used (condition 9+) R5 for just a few hundred more than the new R6II I probably would have gotten the R6II.

It's Sunday morning and Im just having my first coffee, so I thought I'd spend a few minutes relating my thoughts on the differences in the two cameras.

For anyone contemplating an R6ii vs the R5, obviously there is a big difference in pixel count, but there are some other things about the R6ii which, on paper, would seem to be improvements over the R5:

ISO Range:

• R6ii - max native ISO 102400
• R5 - max native ISO 51200
• I don't think I've ever shot at 51200, so this wasn't even a consideration

Continuous Shooting:

• R6 II: 40fps electronic, 12fps mechanical, buffer 190 JPEG/75 raw at 40fps
• R5: 20fps electronic, 12fps mechanical, buffer 350 JPEG/180 raw
• Note: R6 II also has the "Raw Burst" and "Pre-Shooting" modes not found on the R5
• Because of rolling shutter, I usually keep my R5 in Mechanical Shutter. 12fps is plenty fast, so the fact that the R6ii is faster in electronic is nice, but not that important to me. As for the Pre-Shooting function (captures images in a buffer BEFORE you even press the shutter), the R5 currently does not have that but rumors are that this might be coming in a future firmware update. Nice if that happens, but I'm, not losing sleep over it.

Auto Focus:

• The R5 has more AF points (nearly 1000 more 5940 vs 4897) but the R6ii has some additional AF "subject types"
• Both AF systems are great so I wouldn't consider this a make or break consideration. Rumors are that the next firmware upgrade for the R5 will add additional subject options.

Image Stabilization:

• Both have up to 8 stops of IS

Video:

• R6 II: 4K 60p, FHD 180fps
• R5: 8K 30p internal raw, 4K 120p 4:2:2 10-bit
• Obviously the R5 has more robust video capabilities, but I am primarily a stills shooter, so this wasn't really a big factor for me. People who are more into video would appreciate the video capabilities of the R5, but really the R6II is no slouch.

Controls:

• R6 II has a dedicated mode dial, but doesn't have a top LCD. Also the R6II has dedicated video/ stills switch
• R5 has a top LCD screen, but changing modes is a little clunky compared to the R6. Also switching between video and stills required two button presses - the mode button on top, then press the "info" button on the back.
• I like having the LCD on top (I'm used to that with the 5D4) but I actually think I like the controls on the R6 II better. Not a deal breaker, but I find changing modes and video/stills a bit clunky on the R5.

Displays:

• R5 has higher resolution EVF and rear screen.
• I had rented the R6, with similar screen/EVF resolution to the R6 II and had no issues with the EVF or rear screen, so this would not have been a deciding factor for me.

Memory Cards:

• R6 II: 2x SD UHS-II slots
• R5: 1x CFexpress Type B slot and 1x SD UHS II slot
• Which is better is a matter of personal preference and what you shoot. Personally, as a mostly stills shooter, I'd have preferred dual SD slots since SD cards are cheaper and are more than up to the task for stills. The CFExpress card is really only necessary in hard-core video scenarios like high speed high resolution video. Given the R5's capabilities with video, it's understandable why they have the CFe slot.

My conclusions:

From my perspective as a mostly stills shooter (Landscapes and wildlife, birds, etc) I am certain I would have been very happy with the 6D II. Had I not seen the lightly used R5 for not ridiculously more cost, I would have gotten the R6 II and I'm sure that I'd have been happy with that camera.  In looking at the differences, there are some things about the R6 II that I like better than the R5, but none of the differences would have been deal breakers for me.

For me, it came down to the extra resolution of the 45MP sensor.  In 90% of my use cases, the 24MP of the R6II would have been more than fine,  but I do like the ability to be able to crop more aggressively and still maintain good IQ.  I have found a lot of cases where a bird was just too small in the image and I really needed crop a lot of achieve a good composition.  If you don't think you really need to crop all that aggressively very often, I don't think most people would be disappointed with the 24MP R6 II, so it comes down to whether the added resolution is worth $1200 (money that could go a long way towards getting some really god glass).  In my case, had I not seen the used R5 for just $450 more, I don't think I would have spend $1200 more for a new R5 - I'd have gotten the R6 II and like I said, I'm sure I'd have been happy. Were I more into video, and really wanted those extra video capabilities (4k 120fps, 8k, etc) then I might have justified the additional $1200.  So just ask yourself 1) how much do I really need the extra resolution? (remember, 24MP isn't really too shabby) and 2) how much do I need or want the additional video capabilities? 3) Why else could I do with the $1200 I'd save if I bought the R6 II?

Hope my ramblings prove helpful if you're trying to decide between these two cameras. I don't think you'd bee unhappy with either.

Some excellent additional points to consider.

Either way, read the Manuel....