R5 mk II upgrade or not?

[shawnphoto]

I have the original R5, and have had it for 4 years next month. It's a fine camera that does the work. It seems to be very accurate for photography. Colors are fantastic, but not 100% accurate. The new one is supposed to be lower quality for photography, but is it more accurate with what it does have? Because I would personally take the slightly improved colors over a small increase in dynamic range. I haven't found anyone who has actually A-B tested the R5 and R5 mk II with a detailed color analysis. Honestly, if we exclude video from the equation, should I upgrade to the R5 mk II?

[Tronhard]

You can tweak the colours of both of these cameras if you drill down into the menu system, but if you shoot in RAW, it's irrelevant because there is no colour balancing done with those files.  That is then down to your post-production software.

I am convinced that the R5II is a poorer model with stills than the R5 - I would like to see the documentation behind those opinions. If you look at the differences in photography, they are down to tracking, particularly face/eye - and the ability to store and prioritize faces in events, ball tracking for some round ball sports, faster processor and overall data bus speed for fast moving subjects, thanks to the BSI stacked sensor.

What all these features mean in terms of benefits depends of what you shoot and how you do so.  Features on their own mean nothing if you can't use them to add benefit and value to your photography.