• Primary usage: Food & Concert Stills

• Current camera: 5D Mark II (no plans to sell/trade)

• Lens: EF 35 1.4L/ EF 24-70 2.8L / EF 70-200 2.8L (plan is to get a EF adapter and keep the same glass).

Personal pros/cons and concerns:

• Pro - R5 II has a top LCD and I worry about not having one, after being accustoned to looking there on my 5D II

• Pro - R5 II has a 48MP 45MP, which would allow for flexibility in cropping during concert stills while I'm outside of the main pit

• Pro - R6 II supposedly has better low light performance? Not solely from a native ISO range perspective but from a side by side at the same ISO level comparison. How true/untrue is this, specifically for concert stills.

• Pro - R6 II supposedly has a better/more accurate AF system? How true/untrue is this? Again, specifically for concert stills.

These both will be used for video, but probably less than 15% of the time and nothing that requires 8K or 6K, so that's not really of any concern.

Price...not as big of a factor, so I'm not as worried about the cost difference. I feel like Canon has put buyers in a weird place having to decide between these two bodies because it's not a clear case of more money = better. There's seems to be some give and take either way.

In December of last year I got myself a R6 Mark II to replace my EOS R. After using it for 3 months I gave it to one of my family members because they needed a camera, and I wanted to justify an upgrade to a R5 anyway. After a month shooting with the R5 here are some of my experience, hopefully this helps you decide between the two cameras.

Auto focus, the R6 II never managed to miss focus even in dark light and fast moving subjects and always held that focus, the R5 while still very good, is worse, most notably it locks onto the subject slower. But it’s not a big enough difference to be a deciding factor for me.

Image quality, in terms of photos, the R5 is better most of the time. More details, more (little) dynamic range, much more ability to crop. The R6 II does have less noise in lower light, but once again not enough of a difference to be a deciding factor, for me.

Video, for my uses, the supersampled 4K60 on the R6 II is much more useful than the 8K on the R5, so for me I actually like the R6 II better for video, but if you want 4K 120 then the R5 is it.

Build quality, coming from the EOS R, the R6 felt much less “solid” in my hands, while the R5 feels similar. And the EVF on the R5 is a higher resolution which I really like.

Overall, for my uses I much rather the R5 simply due to the build quality and image quality, but if I was a sports photographer or something similar I’d probably go for the R6 II.

Hey guys, I’m in a dilemma I’ve been saving hard for a canon R5 for a while now and just as I am about to buy it with confidence, I see all the reviews on the freezing and the newer R6 AF being a lot better.

I am just wanting to use a 35 or 50 mm Rf lens with it

I am taking photos of my young children who run fast 😂- wearing clothing that we make- mostly on outdoor locations and still want to capture some detail. I would however like to be able to use it indoors for family photography- so often low light.

I would also like to be purchasing a professional level camera that I can use to take family photos on scene in the future.

I have come from using a DSLR - 760d with a sigma 35mm lens

Please help me 🙈 I hate that at this point I’m not sure again 😂 I just don’t want to have regrets - I don’t want this to be a camera that I sell again to upgrade. This is hopefully going to be a long term investment

Thanks in advance

Hey everyone, just wanted to get everyone’s opinions on whether the extra $1500 is worth it for the R5 II over the R6 III. They both look like amazing cameras but I’m not sure which is the one I want to go with. I love all the features on the R5, but the larger file sizes may be a problem? And I’ve heard some people saying the video and autofocus is better on the new R6. Context: I’m a professional event/whatever photographer and I currently use a R6 mark 1. Thanks everyone

• Budget: $2,250 (lower price = more money for quality glass)

• Country: California, USA

• Condition: Used

• Type of Camera: Mirrorless

• Intended use: 75% photo, 25% video

• If photography; what style: Landscape/portraits

• If video what style: Documentary/vlog style

• What features do you absolutely need: Articulating screen, 4K 60fps

• What features would be nice to have: AI autofocus, rugged/durable

• Portability: Usable on hikes, easy to store

• Cameras you're considering: Canon EOS R5, Canon EOS R6 mark ii

• Cameras you already have: Canon 90D w/ Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 ART

• Notes: I like to print my images, would be nice to have the extra megapixels of the R5.

Hi there! I have been doing landscape and portrait photography as a hobby for 10+ years, and want to upgrade to something full frame and mirrorless.

I am torn between the R5 and R6 mark ii. The extra megapixels of the R5 would be nice (especially for prints), but is it worth the extra $$$?

Overall, what would you all recommend? Does anyone have any experience with both? Are there any glaring differences? Would you guys take the R5, R6ii, or keep the 90D since this is really just a hobby, and I'd just be blowing money.