R6 Mark ll or R5 Megapixels

[tellu]

I'm debating on getting an R6II or R5. My understanding is that one of the main reasons why some choose the more expensive R5 is because more megapixels (and please feel free to tell me more reasons why R5). R6II megapixels are listed as 24.2, what size photos can be printed at that amount without loosing quality? My main focus is landscape photos with sporadic portrait. Also does megapixels have any effect in video? Lately I've been doing lots of videos recording my hikes on a ronin gimbal using a 5DMKIV. Thanks in advance.

[Waddizzle]

While megapixels do define how much resolution and detail an image may contain, it is not the end all, be all.  How many megapixels you need in your images depends highly on what you plan to do with your images.  As far as how many megapixels are needed for printing goes, that depends on your desired print size and the expected viewing distance.  

I chose the R6mII over the R5 because it has lower megapixels.  The higher MP images may require you to upgrade your computer and digial storage capacity, of which I have plenty.  The smaller files can be processed more quickly.  I also liked the fact that it used dual SD cards, which cost significantly less than a CF Express card.

Does sensor resolution have any effect on video?  Yes, of course.  What resolution video do you need or require?  The R6m2 can record Full HD and 4K video.  Do you need more resolution than 4K?  Again, this question is best answered by looking at what is your intended use for your videos.

[Waddizzle]

A typical 45 MB RAW file can range in size from 40-60 MB each.  Multiply those by 100 or 1000.  Video eats up storage like there’s no tomorrow. 

 

[ebiggs1]

My 1st Canon 1D has 4mp. It did and dose make beautiful photos especially portraits.

I don’t think computer resources is a concern. Storage and speed are cheap anymore. But your final use of the photo is the best factor to determine what camera you need. The bottom line is any modern digital camera can make beautiful images.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

I'm going to reply out of order.  The R5 does 8K video or 4K video downsampled from 8K.  The R62 does 4K video downsampled from 6K.  I think it'll output 6K over HDMI If I recall correctly.  If you record continuously and want to create videos longer than 30 minutes, the R62 supports unlimited video.  The R5 has a 30 minute limit when recording continuously.  If you are outside in the sun even recording at 4K it's going to be shorter.  Megapixels do not affect video quality per se, clarity and dynamic range might be influenced by the number of photo sites on a sensor.  A lower megapixel sensor typically has larger photo sites.  This would affect light gathering capability which could in turn affect dynamic range.  How noticeable that might be depends.  All technology has limits.

The R5 will record higher quality video.  I shoot in 4K 24p 99% of the time.  No problem with this on my PC.  If you plan to shoot in 8K, make sure you have a system that can handle it.  Fast processor, m.2 storage, lots of RAM and a dedicated GPU.  You can get super deep on video capabilities alone.  I'm only mentioning it because you said that you like to film hikes.  The 5D4 records in 8-bit color depth.  The R62 and R5 record in 10 and 12-bit color depths.  Enough about video. There's information out there if you want to read more  about it 🙂 .

Still photography. Do I need 45 megapixels or is 24 enough?  This is one of the hardest questions for us to answer.  I think you can print around 20x13in from a 24 megapixel image at 300dpi.  No loss of quality, and 24x36in from a 45 megapixel image.  You can print larger with both but that's when image quality starts to drop off.  I don't print large format 😀.  In fact, I don't even have an inkjet printer any longer.  After a year I realized I wasn't going to use my Pro 100 enough and sold it.  

The last camera I owned was 26.2 megapixels.  I owned it for just over 5 years and wanted more.  I got exactly what I wanted with the R5 C.  I think you're at about 32 mp.  When I initially started looking for a new body I wanted to be above 26.  My dream camera was a 5D MarkV at around 36 megapixels and 4k60.  Canon developed the R.  The battery and EVF wasn't the greatest and the 4K was cropped so I passed.   

24 megapixels is probably enough unless you are printing large format landscapes to put on the wall of your home.  If that's the case,  get the R5. 

I'm on the fence right now too.  I'm going to buy another body. I just don't know which yet. 4 days until the R52 announcement.  I don't see myself needing the R52 though.  I like my R5 C so much.  If I was upgrading from a 5D4 though.... (Like you).  I'd be up at 3AM on the morning of the 17th 😍 ordering the R52.  

It's going to have an active cooling system like my R5 C.  I'm sure it's video capability is going to be bad a$$. (8K 60 is going to have some caveats).  45 MP double stacked high readout sensor.  I think it's getting eye tracking from the R3 too, but unconfirmed of course.  It will definitely have all of the enhanced AF and subject tracking from the R62.  It will be a great camera if it's within your budget..  The R5 and R62 are not going to stop being great cameras either.  There are people out there earning a living and feeding their families with both of these body's.  Let's see what others have to say.  

[March411]

Another item for consideration is composition and crop.

The R5 with give you the ability to crop and maintain decent IQ. I own the R6 MkII and love the results I get but there are times when a subject is distant, I take the shot but have to crop. It doesn't always work out but with the higher MP I may have more keepers. If you shoot wildlife or sports it may be a consideration. For landscapes and portraits probably not as much unless some of your portraits are a result of street photography.

Keep in mind the R5 has video limitations and still challenged by overheating if you push the limits.

[Tronhard]

Hi and welcome to the forum:

To be honest, I cannot answer to the video side of things, as I am a stills photographer.   However, regarding still images the critical questions are what do you shoot, and what do you produce?  The sensor does not stand alone in this question, for landscape and portraiture the optics are also significant.

What do you produce?  By which I mean in what media do present your images.   For example, if you create images for social media, digital displays or small-to-medium prints, the need for a very large MP camera is debatable because for social media and many digital devices, the image sizes will be reduced dramatically in any case: so cropping of an original image should less of an issue.  If you were producing high-resolution images for extremely large, Fine Art prints, maybe you need the MP capacity, especially to capture detail for landscape.

Under what conditions do you shoot?
If you are doing something like portraits, or any other environment where you have control over the lighting there is not much between the cameras, but where the light or dynamic range may be challenging, my own experience and those of trusted reviewers is that the R6 has 1 stop of ISO performance better than the R5, and the R6II exceeds that again.  Here pixel density has an influence because for the same sensor size (all being FF) the much-reduced density of the 24MP of the R6II compared to that of the 45MP of the R5, means R6II photocells are bigger and more efficient in gathering light, thus offering better dynamic range and lSO performance.

What about your optics?
The body does not work alone.  The choice of lenses, both for the quality of their elements, and the aperture performance will have a big impact on final quality - and I find that higher MP cameras are more demanding in that respect.  In your applications, I am thinking particularly in terms of landscape.  If you want to use super-wide lenses to capture a whole, highly-detailed image of a landscape in one image, then you may well need the MP capacity offered by the R5, whereas for less demanding output, and where you might do a panorama or stitch multiple images together, then the R6 may have the edge as you can take in a smaller FoV for each component shot and you get the DR benefits. 

Storage Capacity and Processing:

Remember also you have to have the storage capacity on your cards, (and the R5 uses a CF-Express card + SD Card).  Given you are using a 5DIV already, you are used to having big RAW images, so one assumes you have the necessary storage capacity and processing power to handle such large files.

[TomRamsey]

Besides megapixels, compare all of the assets of each camera and see if any other specs or features mean a lot to you.  The positives and negatives of "how many megapixels" has been debated in this thread and many threads on many forums for years.  Which positives or negatives mean the most to you?  I bought a R6II mostly to use with a long lens for wildlife, But I have no qualms about using it for landscapes either.  I've been using other 24mp cameras for landscapes for several years and the size is fine for me, I'm not printing them, but I do sell many, mostly for stock.  Either camera is going to be OK, but look at the whole camera, not just the number of megapixels to see if it is going to work for you.  Beside different price points on R series cameras, they target photographers with different needs or desires.  As stated above, I was drawn to and chose the R6II to use mainly for wildlife, but if  it wasn't capable for many other uses like landscapes I would not have got it.

[ebiggs1]

"Do I need 45 megapixels or is 24 enough?  This is one of the hardest questions for us to answer.  I think you can print around 20x13in from a 24 megapixel image at 300dpi."

This is only half the story and is only half true. The rest of the story is "viewing distance" In other words how far from the print is the viewer? One foot, ten feet or 100 yards? Actually that is more important than how many pixels.

The truth is, in most cases more is better. But even 'more' has some issues like lenses that can take advantage of 'more'.

"Either camera is going to be OK, ..." The fact of the matter any current digital camera is not only OK but is very darn good to even fantastic. A lot of the so called limitations come from behind the camera or the gear above that drives  that part.

[Aurora4233]

I'm primarily and outdoor aviation photographer and I've shot with crop sensor cameras since the Canon Rebel 300D days (AE1 on film prior to that) so the R7 was my obvious RF body choice but my wife picked up an R8 and I was astounded by the low light performance.  I went on to get an R6mII for myself to take maximal advantage of all the RF glass I've accumulated (especially since we have the RF 10-20mm... no sense in only using that on an APS-C sensor).  I don't own an R5 but I can tell you the R6mII (and it's R8cousin with the same sensor and brain) are ridiculous at low light so if that plays into any of your calculations you can be confident the R6mII will shine.

I've attached a few of my wife's pics from the R8 (R6mII sensor but in a small hand friendly package) that she took for a distillery shoot that convinced me to buy an R6mII for myself.  The R7 is amazing and I benefit from the higher megapixel count and crop factor for my distance work but whenever I'm doing indoors, cockpits, or other confined spaces with the RF10-20 I use the R6mII body.

I can't directly compare the R5 and R6mII so take in all the advice offered by the other posts but I can absolutely assure you the R6mII is an amazing bang for the buck and I've never had a better low light tool in over 30 years of shooting.

The attached pics are JPG out of the camera that she handed to the distillery crew.  I'm sure they could be tweaked to even more fantasticness but this shows what the camera is capable of at ISO 16000+.

** These were all shot handheld with her RF 24-105 f4 that she got used for $695 because it had an impressive 1cm gouge on the front element and to date we've only had one picture where we could actually tell it was scratched and when we showed folks they though it was 'cool lens flair'.  I'm adding this detail to highlight that these weren't even with one of my f1.8 or f1.2 primes.  Truly unbelievable and appreciated performance.  The R6mII and her R8 are a low light beasts that I wouldn't have believed were possible 3-5 years ago.

~Chris