R5 (Not Mark II) vs. R6 Mark II

[Newt-1914]

Since I already owned the R6 Mark II, this is sort of an academic question but here goes…

For a strictly stills shooter, no video and generally only photographing static targets (think landscape and travel photography), would the R5 be a better body?

I’m aware of some features that I would prefer over the R6 Mark II, specifically the higher resolution viewfinder and LCD panel, the IBIS High Resolution 400MP, and oh yeah, 45 megapixels!

Are there any other advantages that it might have?

 

[the-ninth]

The R5 ISO range tops out at 102,400, the R6 goes one stop further to 204,800. However when looking at the studio shot comparison, the high ISO performance looks fairly similar to me:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosr6ii&attr13_1=canon_eosr5&attr13_2=apple_iphonex&attr13_3=apple_iphonex&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=32&attr16_3=32&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0&y=0

For me personally the resolution and shoulder display are the two biggest differentiators. I shoot with the back display turned off (saves battery) and still want to quickly glance at my settings, when taking up the camera.

 

[lonewolf1983]

Since I already owned the R6 Mark II, this is sort of an academic question but here goes…

For a strictly stills shooter, no video and generally only photographing static targets (think landscape and travel photography), would the R5 be a better body?

I’m aware of some features that I would prefer over the R6 Mark II, specifically the higher resolution viewfinder and LCD panel, the IBIS High Resolution 400MP, and oh yeah, 45 megapixels!

Are there any other advantages that it might have?

its pretty much just the resolution, and a very slight DR advantage at low ISO
So yeah better, but noticable? Probably not.

 

[R2D2]

Since I already owned the R6 Mark II, this is sort of an academic question but here goes…

For a strictly stills shooter, no video and generally only photographing static targets (think landscape and travel photography), would the R5 be a better body?

I’m aware of some features that I would prefer over the R6 Mark II, specifically the higher resolution viewfinder and LCD panel, the IBIS High Resolution 400MP, and oh yeah, 45 megapixels!

Are there any other advantages that it might have?

There are definitely differences in the ergonomics and controls, but beyond that for your main types of shooting, just a bit of a gain in resolution.

Personally I prefer the R6ii's superior subject tracking and autofocus over the R5's.

However the R5ii takes those improvements even further.

R2

 

[Alastair Norcross]

It's pretty much just the increased resolution. The R6II has quite a few advantages over the R5, but mostly for things that don't seem relevant to your stated shooting. The most obvious is the more advanced AF system, but that's not really relevant to landscape and travel photography. There are a couple that you might miss. The ability to assign subject to detect to a button is a really neat feature in the R6II (I miss it on my R7). But the one that prevented me from ever seriously considering the R5 is the continuous shooting in e-shutter. Ever since I got my 20D, back in 2005, my standard shooting setting has been low speed continuous. For any shots with people, I like to take short bursts (2-3 shots), so as not to be stuck with closed eyes. Also, on low speed continuous, I can usually take only one shot, if I need to. With all my R cameras, the vast majority of my shooting has been with e-shutter (one of the great advantages of mirrorless). The R5 has no low speed continuous setting for e-shutter. You are stuck with single shot or 20fps. My R6II is on low speed continuous in e-shutter most of the time. If your standard shooting setting is single shot, or you mostly use the mechanical shutter (or EFCS), that wouldn't matter to you. It's a (surprisingly) big deal for me, and one reason I consider the R5II to be such a big upgrade over the R5. Not only can you shoot e-shutter at three different continuous rates (plus single shot, of course), but you can fine-tune all three of those settings, which makes that feature significantly better than even the R6II. I currently have mine on 15, 10, and 5, but I sometimes drop the low speed setting to 3. The last camera I had which allowed me to customize the shooting rates was the 7DII, and I really missed that with subsequent cameras.

 

[Leigh A]

The primary thing the R5 has over the R6-2 is, obviously, resolution, so if producing "large" prints, or for additional cropping capability is a priority the R5 wins.

Other than that, selling the R6-2, with its advanced AF features, for an R5, IMO doesn't make much sense, although adding an R5 as a Landscape + Backup body might be the ticket.

 

[the-ninth]

But the one that prevented me from ever seriously considering the R5 is the continuous shooting in e-shutter. Ever since I got my 20D, back in 2005, my standard shooting setting has been low speed continuous. For any shots with people, I like to take short bursts (2-3 shots), so as not to be stuck with closed eyes. Also, on low speed continuous, I can usually take only one shot, if I need to. With all my R cameras, the vast majority of my shooting has been with e-shutter (one of the great advantages of mirrorless).

Where do you see the advantage of the electronic shutter for your type of shooting? Is it just to reduce mechanical wear?

I also shoot either in low speed or sometimes when taking pictures of kids in high speed mode, but EFCS is my preferred shooting mode, for making full use of the 14 bit readout of the sensor and avoid shutter shock. Only when shooting primes wide open with short exposure times I‘d switch to full mechanical for the bokeh quality.

 

[raylinds]

Several weeks ago I purchased an R6 II, but recently bought a used R5 at a good price and thought I would decide which to keep as I could return the R6II or resell the R5 for what I paid.

I will be returning the R6II for several reasons:

I shoot primarily Landscapes and print fairly large images. I also like the ability to crop. While I honestly think the PQ of the R6 would probably be fine for me and most users, I feel better about the extra resolution and don't see a real difference in AF and tracking for my use. I can also notice the better Electronic View Finder in the R5, though others may not. EVFs are what made me hesitate to go from DSLR to mirrorless, but I am very comfortable with the EVF on the R5. I also like the ability to use faster CFexpress cards, even though I may never actually need the speed. the extra resolution and card speeds may very well be more of a psychological comfort for me rather than real practical advantages, but they make me happy.

One thing I do like better on the R6II is the dedicated exposure mode dial, but I don't change exposure modes very often and it is still pretty quick and easy on the R5.

I also looked at the R5II, but thought the added functions and improvements were not important for my use and pretty much consider the R5 to be the perfect landscape camera for me. Whether it makes sense for you to make the switch, is up to you. but thought I would share my experience.

 

[gium]

For a strictly stills shooter, no video and generally only photographing static targets (think landscape and travel photography), would the R5 be a better body?

Yes

 

[Alastair Norcross]

But the one that prevented me from ever seriously considering the R5 is the continuous shooting in e-shutter. Ever since I got my 20D, back in 2005, my standard shooting setting has been low speed continuous. For any shots with people, I like to take short bursts (2-3 shots), so as not to be stuck with closed eyes. Also, on low speed continuous, I can usually take only one shot, if I need to. With all my R cameras, the vast majority of my shooting has been with e-shutter (one of the great advantages of mirrorless).

Where do you see the advantage of the electronic shutter for your type of shooting? Is it just to reduce mechanical wear?

That's definitely part of it (I can take 4000 shots in a single track meet or road race), but I also like the ability to shoot silently, especially indoors in smallish spaces.

I also shoot either in low speed or sometimes when taking pictures of kids in high speed mode, but EFCS is my preferred shooting mode, for making full use of the 14 bit readout of the sensor and avoid shutter shock.

Yes, I sometimes use EFCS too, but not often. I've done some tests to see whether I can see any difference between 12 bit and 14 bit files, and I can't, even with extensive post processing. I also saw a video on Youtube by a photographer who came to the same conclusion. It's hard to ignore the little voice in your head that says that this might be the one time the theoretical difference actually shows up in real life, which is why I still occasionally shoot my R6II in EFCS.

Only when shooting primes wide open with short exposure times I‘d switch to full mechanical for the bokeh quality.

I've thought about that (I have one F1.2, two F1.4s, three F1.8s, and an F2 prime), but always choose to shoot in e-shutter instead, which also avoids the possibility of awkward bokeh. And now that I have the R5II, there's really no reason I can see to use the mechanical shutter (either full mechanical or EFCS). So far, I haven't shot a single shot with the mechanical shutter on my R5II. I haven't ruled out using full mechanical on my R6II, but won't be surprised if it never happens.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[thunder storm]

Since I already owned the R6 Mark II, this is sort of an academic question but here goes…

For a strictly stills shooter, no video and generally only photographing static targets

Well, that says it all.

(think landscape and travel photography), would the R5 be a better body?

Yes.

I’m aware of some features that I would prefer over the R6 Mark II, specifically the higher resolution viewfinder and LCD panel, the IBIS High Resolution 400MP, and oh yeah, 45 megapixels!

45Mp

Are there any other advantages that it might have?

The R5 has a top LCD which can be nice when the camera is on a tripod, or for street photography. I could live without at top LCD, but sometimes it's a plus.

 

[Leigh A]

Three differing opinion Videos:

https://www.google.com/search?q=EOS...ate=ive&vld=cid:7583ddc8,vid:gLQwW4KPxJ8,st:0

 

[the-ninth]

Alastair Norcross wrote:
And now that I have the R5II, there's really no reason I can see to use the mechanical shutter (either full mechanical or EFCS).

Thanks, it is interesting to learn about a couple of advancements of the R5II that I did not have on my radar yet. 14 bit support and flexible continous shooting make the electronic shutter much more viable.

 

[Newt-1914]

It's pretty much just the increased resolution. The R6II has quite a few advantages over the R5, but mostly for things that don't seem relevant to your stated shooting. The most obvious is the more advanced AF system, but that's not really relevant to landscape and travel photography. There are a couple that you might miss. The ability to assign subject to detect to a button is a really neat feature in the R6II (I miss it on my R7). But the one that prevented me from ever seriously considering the R5 is the continuous shooting in e-shutter. Ever since I got my 20D, back in 2005, my standard shooting setting has been low speed continuous. For any shots with people, I like to take short bursts (2-3 shots), so as not to be stuck with closed eyes. Also, on low speed continuous, I can usually take only one shot, if I need to. With all my R cameras, the vast majority of my shooting has been with e-shutter (one of the great advantages of mirrorless). The R5 has no low speed continuous setting for e-shutter.

That might be significant for me. I have essential tremor in my left hand and in the past (with other cameras) under low light conditions when the shutter speed was low I would use low continuous so that I increased the chances of getting at least one sharp photo.

I need to consider this. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Newt-1914]

The R5 ISO range tops out at 102,400, the R6 goes one stop further to 204,800. However when looking at the studio shot comparison, the high ISO performance looks fairly similar to me:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...6_3=32&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0&y=0

I usually don't go above 6400 if I can help it. Looking at the results (at that link) for 6400 and below, I can see a noticeable difference.

For me personally the resolution and shoulder display are the two biggest differentiators. I shoot with the back display turned off (saves battery) and still want to quickly glance at my settings, when taking up the camera.

Yes, and that is exactly how I would set the R5 up.

 

[Newt-1914]

The primary thing the R5 has over the R6-2 is, obviously, resolution, so if producing "large" prints, or for additional cropping capability is a priority the R5 wins.

Large prints are not likely to be required very often. It would typically be in the 12x14 range.

But, cropping is different. With 45mp I believe that I could successfully crop an image from say, the 28-70mm lens to avoid needing to use, or more importantly, carry, a longer one all the time. That's important for me when it comes to travel.

Other than that, selling the R6-2, with its advanced AF features, for an R5, IMO doesn't make much sense, although adding an R5 as a Landscape + Backup body might be the ticket.

Ah, but I can't justify having both (financially at least).

 

[Newt-1914]

Are there any other advantages that it might have?

The R5 has a top LCD which can be nice when the camera is on a tripod, or for street photography. I could live without at top LCD, but sometimes it's a plus.

Good also for Astro which I have dabbled in and would like to do more of.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

The R5 ISO range tops out at 102,400, the R6 goes one stop further to 204,800. However when looking at the studio shot comparison, the high ISO performance looks fairly similar to me:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...6_3=32&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0&y=0

I usually don't go above 6400 if I can help it. Looking at the results (at that link) for 6400 and below, I can see a noticeable difference.

You can? I can't.

For me personally the resolution and shoulder display are the two biggest differentiators. I shoot with the back display turned off (saves battery) and still want to quickly glance at my settings, when taking up the camera.

Yes, and that is exactly how I would set the R5 up.

 

[Zeee]

Not your style but the R6II offers more custom AF options in the Detail Set. Eye Detect AF can be used in all AF modes, just not whole area.

I actually like my R6II for landscape over my R5, which I sold. You can crop quite a bit with the R6II. I wish it had a 30mp sensor like my 5D4 but 24 works for me.

 

[Rock and Rollei]

I don't have an R6 II, but I do have R5, R6, and R8. For me, the biggest advantage of the R5 over the R6 and R6 II that nobody ever mentions is the slightly bigger rear screen on the R5. My hands are average sizes, and with the smaller screen size of the R6, touch and drag AF, my favourite way of moving the focus points(I utterly loathe using the joystick) is much less comfortable, as the screen is further away from the grip. The R8 also has the smaller screen, but because the body is smaller, it's still comfortable.

R8 (and this R6 II) AF is better for travel. R5 is my landscape camera. R6 remains my primary choice for low light conference# work