Canon R5 vs R5 mark ii

[Texasguy]

Is the Mark ii that much better if all you do are still photography for wildlife 

[Tronhard]

Hi and welcome to the forum:

The term wildlife covers a wide range of subjects - from small animals, to macro mammals via birds.  Running across those subject types is also what those animals are doing.  Portrait photography of (relatively) static subjects is different from fast maneuvering birds in flight, for example. Each has its own challenges and demands of a camera and lens. Then again a body does not operate in isolation.  It needs an appropriate optic to work and the choice of such a lens can make or break the outcome.

All that said, while the R5II does offer some benefits to a wildlife photographer, such as enhanced focus tracking, and pre-capture,   The question is, especially if one has the R5, does it make that much difference?  For me, as a wildlife photographer who shoots across the range, no it does not as I am quite happy with the results I get from my current setup, and one should be able to identify a specific benefit in terms of improving performance or overcoming some limit that can only be resolved by the new technology, before forking out a lot of cash on new tech.  Camera makers tout features that are characteristics of the product but may not improve your photography enough to be of value. That is how I look at it, but your situation may be very different.  

[Texasguy]

Thank you. I currently use a R6 and mostly the canon 600 version 2 with a 1.4 extender and find that I'm still having to crop many pictures. I seem to see a lot of detail in my pictures even doing that but wondering how much better it would be using a R5 series camera 

[Bazsl · Accepted solution]

Much better than what? If you are looking for more detail compared to your R6 you should see it with the R5 Mark II and your 600mm f4.0 prime since the R5 II has a higher resolution sensor. If you shoot wildlife in motion the greatly improved tracking and pre-capture will also help.