Upgrading from 5D Mark IV - R5 or R6 Mark II?

[Matt Shepker]

I am a semi-professional photographer that shoots primarily indoor sports. Swimming is my biggest moneymaker, but I also shoot basketball, volleyball, and wrestling. I have two 5D Mark IVs, but one took a tumble and has developed some major issues. It also has close the 350k shutter cycles on it, so it is probably about time to update anyway. I've been considering making the jump to mirrorless, and the damage to my backup 5D has pushed me in that direction.

I'm considering the R5 and the R6 Mark II. I'm not concerned about the price difference between the two cameras, but I am trying to determine if one suits me better. Obviously, the 45MP sensor on the R5 stands out as a big driver for that, but the higher ISO and 40fps frame rate stands out on the R6. Besides that, the two cameras look pretty identical from a features perspective. I realize that with both cameras that I'm going to need to use the lens adapter, but so far, I haven't seen a lot of negatives to that.

Does anyone have experience shooting indoor sports with either of these two bodies? I'm listening to all opinions on this.

Thanks!

 

[chrisis]

I am a semi-professional photographer that shoots primarily indoor sports. Swimming is my biggest moneymaker, but I also shoot basketball, volleyball, and wrestling. I have two 5D Mark IVs, but one took a tumble and has developed some major issues. It also has close the 350k shutter cycles on it, so it is probably about time to update anyway. I've been considering making the jump to mirrorless, and the damage to my backup 5D has pushed me in that direction.

I'm considering the R5 and the R6 Mark II. I'm not concerned about the price difference between the two cameras, but I am trying to determine if one suits me better. Obviously, the 45MP sensor on the R5 stands out as a big driver for that, but the higher ISO and 40fps frame rate stands out on the R6. Besides that, the two cameras look pretty identical from a features perspective. I realize that with both cameras that I'm going to need to use the lens adapter, but so far, I haven't seen a lot of negatives to that.

Does anyone have experience shooting indoor sports with either of these two bodies? I'm listening to all opinions on this.

Thanks!

From my perspective the R5 would be the better choice going from a 5DIV. Certainly it was the way i went when I felt it was time to move into Canon mirrorless. I actually hung on to my 5DIV for a while, before I realized that i just wasn’t using it anymore and sold it (at a great price!) to my son.

I really couldn’t see going back from 30 MP to 24 with the R6 (the R6II wasn’t out at the time). Since then the R6II is definitely an upgrade, but having held them and tried them out I wouldn’t think of swapping out my R5 to get one. I am not a semi-professional, but I do a fair bit of shooting birds, animals, sports and grandsons (who move really fast ). I generally find 15 FPS more than enough, and most often use electronic first curtain or mechanical. Even though the R5 has a pretty fast readout and relatively good rolling shutter I rarely use the electronic shutter. I find all it does is fill up my card, especially since it is essentially silent.

I also have a R7, which is effectively a 1.6 teleconverter for my RF lenses. The 30FPS Electronic shutter is awesome, but I rarely use it because of the relatively poor rolling shutter. It is great for static subject though.

Now, one thing to consider is that there seems to be an expectation that there will be a R5 Mk II in the next year or so Foe my money, I wouldn’t wait, but your mileage might vary!

Chris

 

[José B]

I am a semi-professional photographer that shoots primarily indoor sports. Swimming is my biggest moneymaker, but I also shoot basketball, volleyball, and wrestling. I have two 5D Mark IVs, but one took a tumble and has developed some major issues. It also has close the 350k shutter cycles on it, so it is probably about time to update anyway. I've been considering making the jump to mirrorless, and the damage to my backup 5D has pushed me in that direction.

I'm considering the R5 and the R6 Mark II. I'm not concerned about the price difference between the two cameras, but I am trying to determine if one suits me better. Obviously, the 45MP sensor on the R5 stands out as a big driver for that, but the higher ISO and 40fps frame rate stands out on the R6. Besides that, the two cameras look pretty identical from a features perspective. I realize that with both cameras that I'm going to need to use the lens adapter, but so far, I haven't seen a lot of negatives to that.

Does anyone have experience shooting indoor sports with either of these two bodies? I'm listening to all opinions on this.

Thanks!

Hi Matt,

I went with the R6MKII after I saw the reviews that they have improved on the readout speed. I have yet to try it for indoor sports (I shoot volleyball sometimes) but did a model shoot with a tennis pro. I used electronic shutter in all the action shots and was pleasantly surprised that at 1/1000-1/1250 sec. shutter speed I have yet to see any distortions like an elongated racquet or egg-shaped ball. Mind you there are tons of images to sift through (I shot in high bursts @ 40 fps). Also, for touring pros I would set the camera at 1/2000 sec. shutter speed as those guys hit harder. I'll have to try that sometime next year. Anyway, I'm very optimistic about the results because for volleyball my shutter speed is at 1/1000 sec.

No issues with using the EF-RF Canon adapter. Very seamless, as if my EF lenses are native.

I set my R6MKII to Servo, Subject recognition human ON and Wide area focus. It's like point and shoot, amazing how fast and accurate the focus is.

Obviously if you need to crop a lot then the R5 is your best bet but I'm extremely happy with my R6MKII + vertical grip.

Cheers,

José

 

[Wingsfan]

I shot swimming for multiple USA teams up until about 2 years ago, including a few who made it to the Olympics in their college years... just strictly from that perspective I never found any need for anything more than 20 megapixels. But it also depends on what lenses you're shooting with. I would always work with F2.8 or faster, and shot probably 90% of all that with various em1, 1.2 and 1.3 cameras, so a much smaller sensor and resolution then you have.

Even with a regular r6, I never found any issue with 20 megapixels. For some reason 20 megapixels on the R6 seems to actually be more than that in many cases. And whether it was an F 2.8 or F4 I had great success with that as well. I rarely post pictures due to respect and privacy concerns with my subjects over the years, so I don't have many, if any examples in my gallery here that were indoors ( in addition to names on caps which I would prefer not to have to edit out).

And as you know you don't necessarily need speed for swimming, but you need enough to get that exact moment in between when a Splash or water droplet might be blocking an eye, or someone's face.

Also shot high school basketball and again even that seemed to be fine. But I tend not to crop so much and a basketball court has better access than a SC or LC pool, so reach is often less critical.

There are some claims the R6/ii is better in low light vs r5- I don't know because I don't need to push it that far ever, but that may be your ultimate consideration rather than resolution.

 

[CamerEyes]

I am a semi-professional photographer that shoots primarily indoor sports. Swimming is my biggest moneymaker, but I also shoot basketball, volleyball, and wrestling. I have two 5D Mark IVs, but one took a tumble and has developed some major issues. It also has close the 350k shutter cycles on it, so it is probably about time to update anyway. I've been considering making the jump to mirrorless, and the damage to my backup 5D has pushed me in that direction.

I'm considering the R5 and the R6 Mark II. I'm not concerned about the price difference between the two cameras, but I am trying to determine if one suits me better. Obviously, the 45MP sensor on the R5 stands out as a big driver for that, but the higher ISO and 40fps frame rate stands out on the R6. Besides that, the two cameras look pretty identical from a features perspective. I realize that with both cameras that I'm going to need to use the lens adapter, but so far, I haven't seen a lot of negatives to that.

Does anyone have experience shooting indoor sports with either of these two bodies? I'm listening to all opinions on this.

Thanks!

I once went from 5DMIV to EOS R. You are lucky to have more choices this time!

The R6Mii focusing is superior to the R5. Its 24mp sensor is astounding. It allows you to set subject detection to Auto and then forget about it. The camera switches to people, animals, cars on its own, rather flawlessly. That to me is the one feature which makes it a joy to use.

 

[KENTGA]

I'm basically a landscape shooter and do very little indoors. I have 5D4 and I got RP w/24-240 lens waiting for R5 w/24-105 f4. About a year later I bought R7 w/18-150 kit lens. I use R5 w/ 24-240 lens and the 24-105 is gathering dust. Not sure 24-240 will be fast enough for you and I shoot Auto ISO. Sorry but I'm not familiar with the R6's but I know R5 and R6 has a high frame shooting rate.

Let us know what you decide.

Kent

 

[Tmjc]

I think the answer to your question is: how much resolution do you actually need?

I imagine that you can frame swimmers pretty tightly, and so therefore don't need to crop a lot? Do you make massive prints (larger than 25 inches)?

If not the answer is to go for the R6 mark Ii for the better af imo. If you really need the resolution then obviously go for the r5

 

[Alastair Norcross]

For the sports you shoot, I seriously doubt whether there would be any advantage to 45MP, as opposed to 24. Remember, just a few years ago, the top of the line professional sports cameras had 20MP, and the results were astoundingly good. I went from the 30MP R (same sensor as 5DIV) to the 24MP R6II and haven't noticed the minor drop in resolution at all. I do have an R7 for when I want more pixels on the subject. It was very useful for some indoor shots of the audience in a conference in a largish auditorium, where I would have been cropping my R6II more than 1.6X anyway. For everything else, the R6II was superb. I doubt whether you would be focal length limited for swimming, basketball, volleyball or wrestling, so the extra megapixels won't be an advantage. The AF system in the R6II is simply astounding. Even better than the already excellent R5.

 

[noggin2k1]

The R6II would likely tick every single box other than one (and no, it's not resolution) - build quality.

The R6II will be a step down from the 5DIV from the construction side of things, and whilst I'm not saying you're heavy handed, it sounds like your cameras get properly used.

If you do give your cameras a fair bit of physical use, I'd definitely recommend taking a look at the R3 - I've lost count how many times mine have been dropped, and they're still working a charm. I very much doubt the same would be said if I was shooting with R6II's, and even probably R5's.

 

[Pshots23]

I vote R6mkii

 

[Matt Shepker]

Outside of everything, this is probably the biggest concern that I have. Obviously, the 5DIV is a workhorse, and the consumer/prosumer-level gear isn't going to meet that same standard. The cost jump from the R5 to the R3 is a bit daunting for a system entirely new for me and doesn't natively fit any of my existing glass. Going the route of the R5 feels like I'm easing into it.

 

[Matt Shepker]

These are all great points to consider. To answer a few questions...

For swimming, my motto is frame tight, crop tighter. Since I almost always shoot competition photos, the most challenging part of getting tight framing is shooting from the edge of the pool to the center lanes. I usually shoot in tandem with another photographer, so I normally don't have to cover anything more than four lanes away, but it happens sometimes.

I don't have control over what sizes of prints are made from the images I make. I offer poster-size prints and full-resolution digital images, which people can do what they want.

At the moment, I am leaning toward the R5 primarily because of the 45MP. My biggest concern with any of the new R series cameras is lens compatibility. I know that my Canon EF lenses won't be an issue, but my Sigma 180-300 is my primary workhorse, and I can't find a lot of info on how it is going to work. I'd love to upgrade to the Canon 100-300mm f.2.8 lens, but $10k is a little out of my current price range.

 

[noggin2k1]

Outside of everything, this is probably the biggest concern that I have. Obviously, the 5DIV is a workhorse, and the consumer/prosumer-level gear isn't going to meet that same standard. The cost jump from the R5 to the R3 is a bit daunting for a system entirely new for me and doesn't natively fit any of my existing glass. Going the route of the R5 feels like I'm easing into it.

If it makes you feel any better, I basically went 5DIV -> A9 -> A9II -> R5 -> R3.

Fully understand your rationale with the R5 (which makes total sense), I just wouldn't be surprised if you ultimately end up with an R3.

What I will say, regardless of the model you go for - your current EF glass will categorically work better on an R body versus the 5D4. Whereas I used to have a love/hate relationship with the 50/1.2 on the 5D4, I now utterly adore it on the R3's.

 

[dmanthree]

I am a semi-professional photographer that shoots primarily indoor sports. Swimming is my biggest moneymaker, but I also shoot basketball, volleyball, and wrestling. I have two 5D Mark IVs, but one took a tumble and has developed some major issues. It also has close the 350k shutter cycles on it, so it is probably about time to update anyway. I've been considering making the jump to mirrorless, and the damage to my backup 5D has pushed me in that direction.

I'm considering the R5 and the R6 Mark II. I'm not concerned about the price difference between the two cameras, but I am trying to determine if one suits me better. Obviously, the 45MP sensor on the R5 stands out as a big driver for that, but the higher ISO and 40fps frame rate stands out on the R6. Besides that, the two cameras look pretty identical from a features perspective. I realize that with both cameras that I'm going to need to use the lens adapter, but so far, I haven't seen a lot of negatives to that.

Does anyone have experience shooting indoor sports with either of these two bodies? I'm listening to all opinions on this.

Thanks!

While I love my R5, for the uses you mention the 6 II is a better choice. I doubt you need 45MP for those uses, and the R6 II is a better action cam.

 

[PabloEnrique]

Absolutely enjoyed your photo galleries. Beautiful pictures all the way around. Great job.

 

[Matt Shepker]

Thanks to everyone who offered suggestions and insights. I went with the R5 and have spent the last two days getting it configured and figured out. The bells and whistles on it, compared to the 5DM4, are pretty extensive. I'm still waiting on a few things to get shipped, so I haven't gotten the entire experience. Aside from the proliferation of menu items, the only other thing I can say is that it feels tiny in my hand.

Thanks again for all your feedback.

 

[Sanbai]

Congratulations to the OP for it's new R5.

I, a mere hobbyist, made the switch from the 5DIV to the R5 this year. I couldn't be happier. The advances in AF and the mirrorless system makes wonders: it makes easier to place focus where you want, and it does it more accurately. Add the IBIS to the equation and then I have the camera I was really wishing when I bought the 5DIV.

The 5DIV in live-view mode has very accurate and fast AF capabilities, including servo, but Canon did not develop that into a pseudo-mirrorles, lacking overall speed. AF was fast, but shooting was slow - too late for that photo of your kid you wanted. The AF with mirror in place is very good, but accuracy with 30 Mpix and fast lenses whit shallow DoF is a real challenge - especially if you don't train frequently in its use (like me). I don't know why Canon never implemented the auto-calibration for focus shift like Nikon (although I don't know how effective was that). Well, all these "issues" are gone with the R5 and even improved.

As much as I love the R5, I'm still wonder if I made the right decision by not buying the R6II and save the money (not a big dilema, though ). I guess I went for the high 45 Mpx and the cropping flexibility; just in case and to settle with a camera for a very long time. Still, when I scroll through my catalogue I see that 24 MPx is also plenty. It's great to zoom into 45 Mx, but my old 8Mpx 30D could print large enough, to put an example.

There's a burden on those 45 MPx. One is the larger files it generates, demanding more on future storage needs (not a big issue, but not negligible either). More important, It "forced" me to update my 9 years old PC, which worked nicely otherwise. With the AI masking in Lr and the (not very useful for me) denoising, it was already showing some age with 30 Mpx. The 45 Mpx of the R5, and the 40 of the Fuji X-T5 made it worst. Still bearable... but I could not resist the update.

Well, from my side, I see that I have R5 for many many years. I could say the 5DMIV was NOT a camera for a lifetime already from the day I bought it, because at the time the leading technologies that the R5 has and appreciate were already present, better or worse. Now there are other technologies or advances that the R5 does not have, and others that will be likely implemented, but for my needs these are much less important than what the R5 brings against the 5dIV.
BTW, I big plus on changing to the R system is the 24-105 f/4 L and the compact 70-200 f/4. I love them! I do keep my EF-mount primes and the wide angle zoom - they work better than ever and are still good.