Hey everyone!

I am currently debating (with myself) what the ideal camera between the R5 and the new R6 III would be for me. 99% of the time im shooting wildlife and it will probably stay that way for a very long time.

My current setup consists of the R10 in combination with the RF 100-500 and im loving that combination so far. I am by no means a professional photographer who would need one of those mentioned cameras, but i want to step up my game even further, especially i also want to dive more into video (i feel like i am really missing the in-camera-stabilization in the R10 for videos, especially at 500mm range its really shaky).

One of my biggest concerns is, as i am used to APS-C and the additional reach it provides, that i will just feel to be short most of the time and i cant really estimate what the MP, e.g. of the R5, will allow me in cropping to equalize the missing range. I dont really want to buy an extender as its just a pain with the 100-500.

Im shooting wildlife of all kinds at basically all possible distances. I also want to upgrade for the weather sealing because i got some upcoming trips (e.g. Costa Rica) and dont want to be scared to go out with my camera.

Another idea was to wait for the R7 II as a more professional APS-C camera, but as info is scarce, thats probably not really helping the decision. So for now focussing on the mentioned ones. At the moment im leaning more towards the R5 as it will be cheaper than the R6 III, on the other hand, with the R6, i will probably be set up for a very long time (with the R5 probably also haha).

Thanks in advance for every help!

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

Upgrading from my m50 and trying to decide which one. Already have a tele lense. Want to shoot everything from birds to moose.

Im considering the R6 due to its low light performance and autofocus, but Im worried that a full frame would sacrifice too much range, but that again I could probably combat with a 2x. Then again, the R5 has the megapixles.

Please help and feel free to leave pros and cons with your Camera.

• 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.

I am in the process of planning for my imminent (within a year or two) retirement and am starting to purchase those items that will support my post-retirement hobbies. I am contemplating picking up either the R5 or R6 for bird stills photography (not too interested in video) to replace my existing 70D. Along with the R? I purchase, it is also my intent to pick up an RF 100-500 lens.

I don’t have any experience with either full-frame or with longer lenses that would suit birding as, while our kids were growing up, my focus was on sport photography (hockey and soccer) and, as such, I never had anything much longer than a 70-200 f/2.8.

I have done a lot of reading and YouTubing on the topic and, for all intents and purposes, the primary difference I can see, other than some aesthetic considerations, is the ability to crop. The common consensus on most of the videos I have watched (Jan Wegener, Glenn Bartley, Jared Polin, etc) is that both are great cameras, but the scales generally tip in favour of the R5, all things considered.

I find myself leaning toward the R5 if only to avoid any potential regrets a month or two down the road, however, I am also cognizant of the fact that there is roughly a $1800 price differential, which isn’t insignificant. Thus, for those of you who have experience with the R5, is the larger sensor size and ability to crop in really worth the price difference, or am I over-thinking this?

I understand that either will be a vast improvement over my current setup, but as I will be losing some “reach” moving from an APS-C body, I wanted to tap into the collective experience of this group for some informed opinions.