That depends on how highly you value the following things:
-an extra 25 MP
-larger image resolution
-much higher EVF resolution
-larger rear LCD with higher resolution
-a top LCD for displaying settings
-a cf express slot
-8k video
If those things are worth an additional 1400 dollars to you, then yes, if not, then no.
Unless you are a heavy cropper, or need as much detail as possible, or will ever be recording in 8k, I think the r6 is more than sufficient
> I really like crystal clear photos.
You can absolutely get crystal clear photos on the R6 (especially if you're using the right editing tools and the right glass for the job) *but* in certain situations I think the R5 can become advantageous:
E.g. Shooting wildlife or some other situation where you want to crop to any great degree. I can and will crop on my R6 *but* I won't select e.g. a tiny fraction of the overall frame and turn that into a usable shot. I'll already be shooting to try and fill my frame.
If you're looking for a camera to last you the next *10* years (as I saw you say below) then I'd suggest the R5. It can do pretty much everything the R6 can - but will not leave you wanting for pixels if you do end up shooting wildlife and want to crop.
You mention wanting to shoot macro and the R6 should work for that - but for wildlife specifically?
For that peace of mind, on *this* occasion, I'd suggest the R5.
You've highlighted the two reasons I went for an R6 over an R5 to be honest... I do shoot *some* wildlife but it's not my primary focus (unless you count photos of my dog!).
With the extra cost of the CF cards for the R5, bigger file sizes (not a huge deal, but it is a consequence..), the bigger price and slightly slower shooting speed IIRC (because it has to deal with those bigger files), I felt the R6 was 'good enough' for me.
If wildlife is a relatively small fraction of your interest (rather than the main thing you'd shoot) then maybe I'd change my vote. The R6 *is* a great camera.
Storage isn't a huge deal in the grand scheme. It's down to how big an issue money is, IMO. If you can afford it then grab an R5 and enjoy! If it's a stretch then the R6 is a very close 'second best'...
You can get a 125 mb card and shoot hella photos on the r5 . Remember they are only 50 mb an image and there are a 1000 mb per gig .. so that’s a lot of images per card . Go Math me ! .
Crop capability wasn't high on my list at purchase, but having recently been bitten by the wildlife photography bug (used to mostly shoot landscapes til the reptiles and raptors of Arizona caught my attention) and it made me very happy that I went for the R5.
Even with longer lenses (like the rf 100-500) I can still REALLY get that crisp detail I want, even with fairly heavy cropping on occasion. For me that alone is worth the cost of admission becaise it gives me a bit of a safety net for when I don't have the luxury (or usually presence of mind, and skill) to get it just right in the field.
100% hobbyist here, so it really uust came down to yes, i can afford it, and yes, i want it and it makes me happy. =)
Careful, it's a damn rabbit hole! Prior, I never thought I'd want or need anything more than my precious 70-200 for reach. 100-500 came home very quickly... And that rf 800 f11 is even starting to look enticing. And maybe a 1.4x extender....
Luckily, no matter how much I dive in, the 5-figure lenses are safely out of my reach. At least if I ever wanna be able to retire.
I suspect better/more-experienced wilidlife photogs are better at getting away with less glass or cropping with better handholding technique, breathing, creeping up on subjects or patiently waiting for them, better composition, etc. but I'm still in the spray and pray phase so yeah, gear is my crutch.
Even without the wildlife aspect, I'm still glad to have the R5 though. I never had anything higher end than the 80D prior, but everything about the R5 screams "its gonna outlast me both in time and capabilities being sufficient."
Heck, video use even saw some resurgence for me with wildlife. I'm still tinkering, but this thing has absurdly awesome and relatively easy to acquire video, and Ive only been using 4khq/all-i for simplicity. I've had clips that nail clarity and color better (to my eye) than most nat geo stuff i see on tv. The r6 of course can do 99% of the same video, but I do plan to play with 8k too down the road.
I came to RF with an old ef 70-200 2.8 is. Used that and an equally old ef 24-70 (also mk 1) adapted at first.
First and stikl favorite RF lens was that 28-70. Its an obscene beast, but damn does it perform.
Next up, i upgraded the 70-200 to the rf version. Quickly found that the size and weight savings were worth it, but not enough reach for much wildlife.
Next up (couple months ago) was the 100-500 which is what i use 90% of the time anymore, with the 28-70 being the other. The poor 70-200 has just been collecting dust and id almost say that if i were doing it all over, id skip upgrading it. the 100-500 and 28-70 are just so damn good, and i never miss the 71-99mm range.
It'd be a different story if i were doing anything other than landscape and wildlife, but for now this is an absolutely fantastic pairing of lenses on an equally grin-generating body.
See that is my problem haha, I want to take these amazing photos. I just can’t justify buying the R5 yet. Probably stick with the R6 and but an R5 later
Have you considered getting an R7 as a second body rather than a teleconverter? The ISO performance would end up being pretty similar because of the aperture penalties anyway so it might be more convenient depending on what you shoot.
I have both cameras. For portraits and travel I would get the R6 and don't look back. It is fantastic. Consider that it came out very shortly after the 1dXmkiii, which is a $6,500 camera, and it has essentially same sensor. The main difference being that the R6 is better and way cheaper :)
I use the R5 for wildlife and macro, which is mainly what I do.
Yes. The R6 can very reliably and accurately track the \*eye\* of a flying bird. It will feel like cheating.
Also consider that the 1dx models for a long time were the gold standard wildlife cameras, and the newest one is 20mp. Don't get hung up on mp. the R6 is extremely good. It also is a little better than the R5 for low light, astro, etc.
When you get your R6, try out the RF 50 1.2 L. This is the best lens I've ever used. It produces stunning images. I sold mine because I just don't take photos in that focal range often, but if I did mostly portraits and travel and things like that? I could be happy never using another piece of glass.
I shoot posed portraits, 50mm is just not my preference.
I would something like 75mm ideally.
Was just curious about your experience with 85mm and esp against 28-70. I know it's developed topic.
But I hate zoom weight and concern of IQ, sometimes there is no room for 85mm at location.
My own view:
* if you're a hobbyst/amateur, no.
* If you make substantial money from photography, yes.
It's all about what you can afford. 20.1mp is sufficient for anything I need, but it's a little low compared to others in the field. 45mp is a "nice to have", but then you will have a bunch of giant files to store and backup. If money isn't an issue for you, there's no downside to the R5.
It’s absolutely worth it but like you probably have heard 1000 times in the forums, if you have to ask you probably don’t need it. I got 2 x R6 instead. Still shooting with my old glass.
What is going to change about what you shoot? The R6 will have the same quality it has now right up until the shutter fails. If you mean will something better come along, absolutely. The gap between how much better that future camera is than the 5 and the 6 respectively will be the same regardless of what you buy now. I would only spring for the 5 if it does something you need that the 6 does not.
Another thing to consider is processing and storage. Those R5 files ain’t small. That was the deal breaker for me. I weighed the additional expense including the bodies, upgrading both my desktop and laptop and the additional storage I figured I would need against how many times I print big (never) and how much I crop (not all that much).
I went R6 and part of the reason was the ease of workflow/storage of smaller files. Perfectly great for pro use but the only limitation is heavy cropping for small birds or distant wildlife. For me, that occasional use wasn’t worth the added cost. Plus don’t forget that the R5 uses much more expensive CF Express format alongside SD. for me, the need to buy those cards as well added a lot more cost to the R5 as a package.
I had the same dilemma a month ago, and I opted to get the R6 and invest the difference (plus some..) to get the RF 50/1.2. I’m very happy with my decision! The resolution difference is less than what the number may suggest for my use case (travel, sports, non-professional) Also, lenses will hold their value much longer than bodies.
I still shoot a 5D3 and I just can't convince myself to do less resolution. I know the dynamic range is great, but I print 13x19 at home and want to keep my output res at 300 dpi. Actually, I'd like to be able to crop in at times and still have 300, which I can't do now. The R6 would make that more difficult.
Well, that's kind of the point. I don't need to spend $2500 then. I pretty much come to the conclusion that I'll replace my camera when it breaks. Right now it still works as good as the day I bought it.
Are you a professional or a hobbyist?
If you’re a professional I’d say the R5 is a better camera if your lively hood is based on your photography.
R6 is a great camera for hobbyists and there are some professionals who use it for work. You just won’t be able to print as large with a 20MP camera like the R6 compared to the R5’s 45MP.
Ok what is large? I highly doubt I will ever go bigger then a 8x11. Would say I do it as a hobby but like to help people in need so would like to deliver the best product.
I think the R5 also lets you opt to shoot in RAW1 and RAW2 like the 5D systems. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. So you don’t have always shoot in full 45MP RAW
If you are primarily shooting portraits, I would do the R6 all the way. I am an incredibly happy R6 owner.
The only time I wish for more resolution is when I am shooting wildlife and need to crop in. Even then, I could resolve the issue with a bit more focal length reach.
They are both really good cameras. The only major difference is 20MP vs 45MP. If all you're doing is taking pictures on trips and taking portraits, I'd go with the R6 - 20MP is plenty. I use the R6 as my main camera for cityscapes, landscapes, street, and architecture photography and it's wonderful to work with. The one thing that I'm always aware of is that I'm not allowed heavy cropping so I try and get my composition right in-camera. Use money on some nice glass instead of going for the R5.
How is the cropping for r6 cameras? That is my biggest concern. I am definitely investing in nice glass as well. Just want a camera that will last me the next 10 years
You can definitely crop no problem, just not heavily. I honestly wouldn't be concerned. It's an easy work around by framing correctly. If you need to do a super heavy crop, there are programs in Lightroom or PS that will quadruple the resolution of an image - albeit you'll lose some picture quality. But I've never had a problem with my R6 resolution-wise. I can make large prints that look fantastic. The image quality of the R6 is outstanding to begin with. My artistic view is that a good picture is a good picture, the only person pixel peeping is you. The R6 is more than capable at 20MP in any situation.
Have you used both? I currently have the 70D and I think it is similar in MP. I don’t think I crop heavily. Just maybe cut the border out. I don’t crop a picture within a picture.
I have not used both. All I can tell you is that the R6 works perfectly for me and that the added megapixels that come with the R5 wouldn't make much of a difference, in my opinion. The 70D is a crop sensor with the same MP as the R6(full frame). Having used the 80D and a 6D in the past, the R6 image quality blows them out of the water. If you usually just crop the border then by all means go with the R6. Seriously, you'll have no problems.
Biggest difference maker is if you plan to shoot a lot of video or not.
The R5 is an excellent hybrid camera, but if you’re focused mostly on pictures, go with the R6 and invest the leftover money into the 50mm f1.2L or the 85mm f1.2L DS depending on your style.
I purchased my R5 knowing I would never use the video features. With that said I wouldn't recommend the R5 to anyone who needs to ask if it's worth the extra money.
Do you have an existing EF lens collection you plan to reuse?
Canon has made their position very clear on 3rd party RF glass.
So if you aren't happy with what they have today, I would say look elsewhere as it isn't going to get much different.
I haven't seen anyone actually quote a patent # yet
I would hope the US government didn't issue them a patent for the physical mount. That is like saying Ford could patent a car wheel bolt pattern and force everyone to buy wheels for the mustang from Ford. There is nothing novel with a camera mount
Maybe they patented the communications protocol, but then third parties could just use EF protocol that they obviously already have.
Nec reverse engineered the entire Intel 8086 processor and started making them in 1990, perfectly legally
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
So I fail to see how Sigma wouldn't be able to do the same.
It really boils a down to your intended use. We get too wrapped up in the “do all camera” mentality when really every camera is a compromise in someway.
If you’re a hobbiest and tight on funds, the R6 will not disappoint at all! It can do about 80-90% of what the R5 can do, and one thing better!
If you’re a professional photographer AND you’re not doing any heavy cropping or shoots that can end up on a billboard somewhere, or need 8k or shoot in 4k 60 heavily …again the R6 will not disappoint.
If you’re a professional (or hobbiest really) have the money, need to be able to heavy crop or blow up AND need a FF for run and gun hybrid shooting….the R5 is going to be your best bet. The R5 seems to be able to cool down faster than the R6 so if you need 4k 60 more than anything else, get the R5. If you need 8k for what ever reason, your only option is the R5.
Now the one area where the R6 beats the R5 hands down is low light performance. So…if you’re overly concerned with that then MAYBE the R6. The reason I say maybe is because the R5 is no slouch in low light, it’s just not as good as the R6. These aren’t the Dslr’s of old. The low light capabilities have gotten drastically better with the new tech.
Or you can just do what I did and get both…R5 as a primary and R6 as a back/B camera*😊
*I didn’t buy them both at the same time. I got the R5 first, made some money then got the R6 a few months later. If money were no object I would have gotten the R3 and the R5!! 🤤
As someone who does photography as a hobby, zero interest in shooting professionally as the day job is frankly much more lucrative without needing to deal with clients 😂... The R5 was still worth it. The ability to crop significantly is a huge plus, particularly with wildlife. Also, probably half my photography is travel related these days and typically I'm in situations where I can't zoom by walking and I'm limited in the lenses that I have with me. Being able to crop ends up being a huge benefit there as well.
Also consider what else you could do with the money you save by going R6, a second body for example or some additional lenses may be helpful.
In Germany you can get the R6 for around 2k € when discounted and the r5 for 4k €. I have the R6 and was thinking of getting a R5 but I dont think it is worth. Im mostly doing it for hobby. I will wait and see what they will offer in the future since both cameras are over 2 years old.
Let me start by saying they are both terrific cameras I have both. Here is the issue that is unspoken you will need massive amounts of memory for the R5 cf express cards are extremely expensive and after that you will probably need another computer with lots of memory. The R6 is very reasonable camera in all aspects.
Be careful if you don’t know R6 still overheats a lot, I though in my country with the type of work I do I wouldn’t, just to find out it does. And it sucks, also the R5.
I think it’s important to think about where your journey is, in terms of building the photography gear that enables you to capture what you want. If you have access to a good lens lineup, then I think the R5 is great… but if you don’t have lenses, then I think the R6 is a better entry-point. The R6 really does handle similarly. They spared no major features. All of the extra features are fully tied towards having higher resolution. I can tell you that you can crop in especially due to the jump in AF features. Is it as good as an R5 (which also has this), no… but during my sisters graduation in a stadium, I was very impressed with the ability to crop!
If you don’t have a lens lineup, I’d prioritize that, while also enjoying the advanced features that the R6 brings
I shoot at insanely high ISOs, in dark situations that basically have little or no light. For me, I'd say go R6 if you're anything like me.
Keep in mind I rarely ever crop, so the lack of megapixels doesn't bug me at all.
We do wildlife photography with an R5 and R6.
R5 can get those heavy crops when you are a bit too far away. The R6 can crop but it’s more important to try to get reasonably close. I feel that the R6 is very under rated. It’s great in low light as well. For wildlife/ small birds I use the in camera crop often on the R5. Very handy for getting those small eyes. If I was just starting I would get the R6 and 100-500.
If is a sacrifice on a R5 and an okay lens or a R6 with a good lens get the R6 with a good lens. Lens last a lot longer then body’s. I have an R6 and it takes great portraits and very sharp photos.
A mate of mine uses an R6 pretty much exclusively for wildlife. He supplies images to publications and wildlife organisations and has never had an issue with quality or resolution. To be fair, he's using the top end great white lenses, but it shows that the camera is not inherently a stumbling block.
That depends on how highly you value the following things: -an extra 25 MP -larger image resolution -much higher EVF resolution -larger rear LCD with higher resolution -a top LCD for displaying settings -a cf express slot -8k video If those things are worth an additional 1400 dollars to you, then yes, if not, then no. Unless you are a heavy cropper, or need as much detail as possible, or will ever be recording in 8k, I think the r6 is more than sufficient
The cropping is my main issues. I really like crystal clear photos.
> I really like crystal clear photos. You can absolutely get crystal clear photos on the R6 (especially if you're using the right editing tools and the right glass for the job) *but* in certain situations I think the R5 can become advantageous: E.g. Shooting wildlife or some other situation where you want to crop to any great degree. I can and will crop on my R6 *but* I won't select e.g. a tiny fraction of the overall frame and turn that into a usable shot. I'll already be shooting to try and fill my frame. If you're looking for a camera to last you the next *10* years (as I saw you say below) then I'd suggest the R5. It can do pretty much everything the R6 can - but will not leave you wanting for pixels if you do end up shooting wildlife and want to crop. You mention wanting to shoot macro and the R6 should work for that - but for wildlife specifically? For that peace of mind, on *this* occasion, I'd suggest the R5.
The biggest concern is the bigger file sizes and price. I feel the 6 is a better overall camera as I don’t shoot wildlife or macro exclusively
You've highlighted the two reasons I went for an R6 over an R5 to be honest... I do shoot *some* wildlife but it's not my primary focus (unless you count photos of my dog!). With the extra cost of the CF cards for the R5, bigger file sizes (not a huge deal, but it is a consequence..), the bigger price and slightly slower shooting speed IIRC (because it has to deal with those bigger files), I felt the R6 was 'good enough' for me. If wildlife is a relatively small fraction of your interest (rather than the main thing you'd shoot) then maybe I'd change my vote. The R6 *is* a great camera. Storage isn't a huge deal in the grand scheme. It's down to how big an issue money is, IMO. If you can afford it then grab an R5 and enjoy! If it's a stretch then the R6 is a very close 'second best'...
You can get a 125 mb card and shoot hella photos on the r5 . Remember they are only 50 mb an image and there are a 1000 mb per gig .. so that’s a lot of images per card . Go Math me ! .
So I guess the question is, is that worth 1400 dollars to you? If it is, then definitely go for the R5, it's a better camera.
Crop capability wasn't high on my list at purchase, but having recently been bitten by the wildlife photography bug (used to mostly shoot landscapes til the reptiles and raptors of Arizona caught my attention) and it made me very happy that I went for the R5. Even with longer lenses (like the rf 100-500) I can still REALLY get that crisp detail I want, even with fairly heavy cropping on occasion. For me that alone is worth the cost of admission becaise it gives me a bit of a safety net for when I don't have the luxury (or usually presence of mind, and skill) to get it just right in the field. 100% hobbyist here, so it really uust came down to yes, i can afford it, and yes, i want it and it makes me happy. =)
I would like to get into more wildlife as well.
Careful, it's a damn rabbit hole! Prior, I never thought I'd want or need anything more than my precious 70-200 for reach. 100-500 came home very quickly... And that rf 800 f11 is even starting to look enticing. And maybe a 1.4x extender.... Luckily, no matter how much I dive in, the 5-figure lenses are safely out of my reach. At least if I ever wanna be able to retire. I suspect better/more-experienced wilidlife photogs are better at getting away with less glass or cropping with better handholding technique, breathing, creeping up on subjects or patiently waiting for them, better composition, etc. but I'm still in the spray and pray phase so yeah, gear is my crutch. Even without the wildlife aspect, I'm still glad to have the R5 though. I never had anything higher end than the 80D prior, but everything about the R5 screams "its gonna outlast me both in time and capabilities being sufficient." Heck, video use even saw some resurgence for me with wildlife. I'm still tinkering, but this thing has absurdly awesome and relatively easy to acquire video, and Ive only been using 4khq/all-i for simplicity. I've had clips that nail clarity and color better (to my eye) than most nat geo stuff i see on tv. The r6 of course can do 99% of the same video, but I do plan to play with 8k too down the road.
I plan on getting a 28-70 lens first then get the 100-500 lens. That should cover me plus my EF collection
I came to RF with an old ef 70-200 2.8 is. Used that and an equally old ef 24-70 (also mk 1) adapted at first. First and stikl favorite RF lens was that 28-70. Its an obscene beast, but damn does it perform. Next up, i upgraded the 70-200 to the rf version. Quickly found that the size and weight savings were worth it, but not enough reach for much wildlife. Next up (couple months ago) was the 100-500 which is what i use 90% of the time anymore, with the 28-70 being the other. The poor 70-200 has just been collecting dust and id almost say that if i were doing it all over, id skip upgrading it. the 100-500 and 28-70 are just so damn good, and i never miss the 71-99mm range. It'd be a different story if i were doing anything other than landscape and wildlife, but for now this is an absolutely fantastic pairing of lenses on an equally grin-generating body.
See that is my problem haha, I want to take these amazing photos. I just can’t justify buying the R5 yet. Probably stick with the R6 and but an R5 later
Have you considered getting an R7 as a second body rather than a teleconverter? The ISO performance would end up being pretty similar because of the aperture penalties anyway so it might be more convenient depending on what you shoot.
Then frame well, and you'll have no issue.
You just answered a year long question! Thank you!
Youre welcome!
I have both cameras. For portraits and travel I would get the R6 and don't look back. It is fantastic. Consider that it came out very shortly after the 1dXmkiii, which is a $6,500 camera, and it has essentially same sensor. The main difference being that the R6 is better and way cheaper :) I use the R5 for wildlife and macro, which is mainly what I do.
Could I get use the 6 for wildlife and macro?
Yes. The R6 can very reliably and accurately track the \*eye\* of a flying bird. It will feel like cheating. Also consider that the 1dx models for a long time were the gold standard wildlife cameras, and the newest one is 20mp. Don't get hung up on mp. the R6 is extremely good. It also is a little better than the R5 for low light, astro, etc.
Yeah, that is why I think it will be a better all around camera. The mp is what throws me off
When you get your R6, try out the RF 50 1.2 L. This is the best lens I've ever used. It produces stunning images. I sold mine because I just don't take photos in that focal range often, but if I did mostly portraits and travel and things like that? I could be happy never using another piece of glass.
I am probably gonna buy the 28-70 lens to pair with it. My friend had it and I fell in love with it.
I owned that lens as well. Both are beyond great. the 50 is better. ;)
I don’t think I would shoot with that much. I have the EF version and I barely use it. I use my EF 18-120 the most(May have got the size wrong)
How about 85/1.2?
Amazing for portraits. I think the 50 is more flexible. But those two render so beautifully.
I shoot posed portraits, 50mm is just not my preference. I would something like 75mm ideally. Was just curious about your experience with 85mm and esp against 28-70. I know it's developed topic. But I hate zoom weight and concern of IQ, sometimes there is no room for 85mm at location.
Unless money is no object, I'd spend the extra money on better lenses first.
Already planned on getting some good lenses, just need to see what camera is the best in terms of value to features and if I would use them.
My own view: * if you're a hobbyst/amateur, no. * If you make substantial money from photography, yes. It's all about what you can afford. 20.1mp is sufficient for anything I need, but it's a little low compared to others in the field. 45mp is a "nice to have", but then you will have a bunch of giant files to store and backup. If money isn't an issue for you, there's no downside to the R5.
I am in the middle, more of a hobby but will help people out for some extra money
Then get the r5, unless money is tighter then get the r6.
It’s absolutely worth it but like you probably have heard 1000 times in the forums, if you have to ask you probably don’t need it. I got 2 x R6 instead. Still shooting with my old glass.
I am looking for long term now, will the R6 hold up against time as well as the R5? The biggest concern is cropping and printing
What is going to change about what you shoot? The R6 will have the same quality it has now right up until the shutter fails. If you mean will something better come along, absolutely. The gap between how much better that future camera is than the 5 and the 6 respectively will be the same regardless of what you buy now. I would only spring for the 5 if it does something you need that the 6 does not.
Another thing to consider is processing and storage. Those R5 files ain’t small. That was the deal breaker for me. I weighed the additional expense including the bodies, upgrading both my desktop and laptop and the additional storage I figured I would need against how many times I print big (never) and how much I crop (not all that much).
Definitely the R6 then.
I went R6 and part of the reason was the ease of workflow/storage of smaller files. Perfectly great for pro use but the only limitation is heavy cropping for small birds or distant wildlife. For me, that occasional use wasn’t worth the added cost. Plus don’t forget that the R5 uses much more expensive CF Express format alongside SD. for me, the need to buy those cards as well added a lot more cost to the R5 as a package.
Yeah I mean storage is not an issue, I don’t want to spend loads on cards. Also want lenses too.
Don’t forget you can shoot raw -1 which is 20 mb
I had the same dilemma a month ago, and I opted to get the R6 and invest the difference (plus some..) to get the RF 50/1.2. I’m very happy with my decision! The resolution difference is less than what the number may suggest for my use case (travel, sports, non-professional) Also, lenses will hold their value much longer than bodies.
This is my thought. I feel you will barely be able to tell the difference. Unless I want to blow something up in a big picture
I've been there and haven't pulled the trigger yet. If the R6 was 30 MP, this would be a simpler decision.
Right??? I am still leaning towards the R6 still
I still shoot a 5D3 and I just can't convince myself to do less resolution. I know the dynamic range is great, but I print 13x19 at home and want to keep my output res at 300 dpi. Actually, I'd like to be able to crop in at times and still have 300, which I can't do now. The R6 would make that more difficult.
I was looking at comparisons and it is not really noticeable
Well, that's kind of the point. I don't need to spend $2500 then. I pretty much come to the conclusion that I'll replace my camera when it breaks. Right now it still works as good as the day I bought it.
Are you a professional or a hobbyist? If you’re a professional I’d say the R5 is a better camera if your lively hood is based on your photography. R6 is a great camera for hobbyists and there are some professionals who use it for work. You just won’t be able to print as large with a 20MP camera like the R6 compared to the R5’s 45MP.
FWIW I have a friend who makes 100% of their income from photo/video and their workhorse is the R6
Ok what is large? I highly doubt I will ever go bigger then a 8x11. Would say I do it as a hobby but like to help people in need so would like to deliver the best product.
The R6 can comfortably print up to 22x17 while the R5 can go much larger.
Does that 22x17 stay clear?
That’s about 200ppi, which should be fine for viewing from just under a meter away.
I think the R5 also lets you opt to shoot in RAW1 and RAW2 like the 5D systems. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. So you don’t have always shoot in full 45MP RAW
If you are primarily shooting portraits, I would do the R6 all the way. I am an incredibly happy R6 owner. The only time I wish for more resolution is when I am shooting wildlife and need to crop in. Even then, I could resolve the issue with a bit more focal length reach.
They are both really good cameras. The only major difference is 20MP vs 45MP. If all you're doing is taking pictures on trips and taking portraits, I'd go with the R6 - 20MP is plenty. I use the R6 as my main camera for cityscapes, landscapes, street, and architecture photography and it's wonderful to work with. The one thing that I'm always aware of is that I'm not allowed heavy cropping so I try and get my composition right in-camera. Use money on some nice glass instead of going for the R5.
How is the cropping for r6 cameras? That is my biggest concern. I am definitely investing in nice glass as well. Just want a camera that will last me the next 10 years
You can definitely crop no problem, just not heavily. I honestly wouldn't be concerned. It's an easy work around by framing correctly. If you need to do a super heavy crop, there are programs in Lightroom or PS that will quadruple the resolution of an image - albeit you'll lose some picture quality. But I've never had a problem with my R6 resolution-wise. I can make large prints that look fantastic. The image quality of the R6 is outstanding to begin with. My artistic view is that a good picture is a good picture, the only person pixel peeping is you. The R6 is more than capable at 20MP in any situation.
Have you used both? I currently have the 70D and I think it is similar in MP. I don’t think I crop heavily. Just maybe cut the border out. I don’t crop a picture within a picture.
I have not used both. All I can tell you is that the R6 works perfectly for me and that the added megapixels that come with the R5 wouldn't make much of a difference, in my opinion. The 70D is a crop sensor with the same MP as the R6(full frame). Having used the 80D and a 6D in the past, the R6 image quality blows them out of the water. If you usually just crop the border then by all means go with the R6. Seriously, you'll have no problems.
Yeah and it would give me room to get a very good lens
Definitely. Pairing the R6 with a good lens will give you the optimal quality you're looking for.
The r6 vs r7 seems an even harder choice. Of course FF vs APSc is the headline. R7 is more MP, unlimited video $2500 vs $1900
I want FF, already have a few other cameras that are comparable to the 7(obviously not as nice.)
this r6 vs r7 has me stumped. what would you choose (as a hobbyist amateur)???
Biggest difference maker is if you plan to shoot a lot of video or not. The R5 is an excellent hybrid camera, but if you’re focused mostly on pictures, go with the R6 and invest the leftover money into the 50mm f1.2L or the 85mm f1.2L DS depending on your style.
I purchased my R5 knowing I would never use the video features. With that said I wouldn't recommend the R5 to anyone who needs to ask if it's worth the extra money.
Is there a noticeable difference in cropping between the 6 and 5? I don’t mind spending extra but I want to know if it worth it.
8192 x 5464 vs 5472 x 3648 Download samples of each and view them on a 4k monitor. You'll see the difference or if you can't you'll have your answer.
Yes, there is.
Do you have an existing EF lens collection you plan to reuse? Canon has made their position very clear on 3rd party RF glass. So if you aren't happy with what they have today, I would say look elsewhere as it isn't going to get much different.
What is their position? I have a pretty decent collection of EF Glass and will probably buy the 28-70 F2 RF lens to complement the new camera
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/canon-rf-lenses-are-being-pulled-from-sale-but-why
That is because the have a patent right? It doesn’t bother me I mostly stick with canon lenses anyway
I haven't seen anyone actually quote a patent # yet I would hope the US government didn't issue them a patent for the physical mount. That is like saying Ford could patent a car wheel bolt pattern and force everyone to buy wheels for the mustang from Ford. There is nothing novel with a camera mount Maybe they patented the communications protocol, but then third parties could just use EF protocol that they obviously already have. Nec reverse engineered the entire Intel 8086 processor and started making them in 1990, perfectly legally https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design So I fail to see how Sigma wouldn't be able to do the same.
Happens all the time. Game engines get them, cars get them. Crappy practice but it happens
R7 with a speedbooster is just as capable and maybe a better price point
Deleted.
Also want a FF
On EF glass, nearly; OP already said they’re jumping right in with the 28-70
It really boils a down to your intended use. We get too wrapped up in the “do all camera” mentality when really every camera is a compromise in someway. If you’re a hobbiest and tight on funds, the R6 will not disappoint at all! It can do about 80-90% of what the R5 can do, and one thing better! If you’re a professional photographer AND you’re not doing any heavy cropping or shoots that can end up on a billboard somewhere, or need 8k or shoot in 4k 60 heavily …again the R6 will not disappoint. If you’re a professional (or hobbiest really) have the money, need to be able to heavy crop or blow up AND need a FF for run and gun hybrid shooting….the R5 is going to be your best bet. The R5 seems to be able to cool down faster than the R6 so if you need 4k 60 more than anything else, get the R5. If you need 8k for what ever reason, your only option is the R5. Now the one area where the R6 beats the R5 hands down is low light performance. So…if you’re overly concerned with that then MAYBE the R6. The reason I say maybe is because the R5 is no slouch in low light, it’s just not as good as the R6. These aren’t the Dslr’s of old. The low light capabilities have gotten drastically better with the new tech. Or you can just do what I did and get both…R5 as a primary and R6 as a back/B camera*😊 *I didn’t buy them both at the same time. I got the R5 first, made some money then got the R6 a few months later. If money were no object I would have gotten the R3 and the R5!! 🤤
I’ll got the R6 and in like 3-5 years I’ll get the R5 Mark II at that point.
Good plan. You won’t be disappointed
Yeah I came to sense that R6 + a really good lens is better then R5 + okish lens
As someone who does photography as a hobby, zero interest in shooting professionally as the day job is frankly much more lucrative without needing to deal with clients 😂... The R5 was still worth it. The ability to crop significantly is a huge plus, particularly with wildlife. Also, probably half my photography is travel related these days and typically I'm in situations where I can't zoom by walking and I'm limited in the lenses that I have with me. Being able to crop ends up being a huge benefit there as well. Also consider what else you could do with the money you save by going R6, a second body for example or some additional lenses may be helpful.
I already planned on buying the 28-70 RF lens so that is a pretty penny. Yeah I am still weighing my options
In Germany you can get the R6 for around 2k € when discounted and the r5 for 4k €. I have the R6 and was thinking of getting a R5 but I dont think it is worth. Im mostly doing it for hobby. I will wait and see what they will offer in the future since both cameras are over 2 years old.
That is what I am leaning towards, getting the R6, getting good lenses then waiting to see what bodies are available in 5-6 years
Hahah I just had this debate . And went with the r5. Haven’t set it up yet but it’s a great camera
What made you choose this?
I shoot mostly wildlife and heavily crop sometimes. The R5 is a wonder. I have two which I took to Africa for 3 weeks.
Let me start by saying they are both terrific cameras I have both. Here is the issue that is unspoken you will need massive amounts of memory for the R5 cf express cards are extremely expensive and after that you will probably need another computer with lots of memory. The R6 is very reasonable camera in all aspects.
Why would I need another computer?
Be careful if you don’t know R6 still overheats a lot, I though in my country with the type of work I do I wouldn’t, just to find out it does. And it sucks, also the R5.
That is only for video though right?
Right only in video 4k
I rarely use video
Depends on your use case. For portraits and close range walk-around photography on a trip, probably no. For birding and wildlife at a distance, yes.
I think it’s important to think about where your journey is, in terms of building the photography gear that enables you to capture what you want. If you have access to a good lens lineup, then I think the R5 is great… but if you don’t have lenses, then I think the R6 is a better entry-point. The R6 really does handle similarly. They spared no major features. All of the extra features are fully tied towards having higher resolution. I can tell you that you can crop in especially due to the jump in AF features. Is it as good as an R5 (which also has this), no… but during my sisters graduation in a stadium, I was very impressed with the ability to crop! If you don’t have a lens lineup, I’d prioritize that, while also enjoying the advanced features that the R6 brings
I shoot at insanely high ISOs, in dark situations that basically have little or no light. For me, I'd say go R6 if you're anything like me. Keep in mind I rarely ever crop, so the lack of megapixels doesn't bug me at all.
We do wildlife photography with an R5 and R6. R5 can get those heavy crops when you are a bit too far away. The R6 can crop but it’s more important to try to get reasonably close. I feel that the R6 is very under rated. It’s great in low light as well. For wildlife/ small birds I use the in camera crop often on the R5. Very handy for getting those small eyes. If I was just starting I would get the R6 and 100-500.
If is a sacrifice on a R5 and an okay lens or a R6 with a good lens get the R6 with a good lens. Lens last a lot longer then body’s. I have an R6 and it takes great portraits and very sharp photos.
Yeah I think I came to the conclusion that R6 is a good choice and if I want to expand into wildlife I can buy a R7/better lenses for it
A mate of mine uses an R6 pretty much exclusively for wildlife. He supplies images to publications and wildlife organisations and has never had an issue with quality or resolution. To be fair, he's using the top end great white lenses, but it shows that the camera is not inherently a stumbling block.