Upgrading from EOS R to either EOS R6 MK2 or EOS R5

[gulax99]

Hello I’m considering to upgrade from my EOS R to a EOS r6 mk2 or an eos R5 and for this I need your help because I can’t decide. Why do I want to switch: I’ve gotten into sports photography and the EOS R is just too slow for that 5 FPS with autofocus, mostly for Mountain bike photography. But that’s not the only thing. Before I had the EOS R I used to have a EOS 90D. The 90D had a joystick and a quick control dial wheel - which the EOS R doesn’t have - and I miss those and want them back. The EOS R has a touch bar - which I firstly thought was nice but now I hate it and don’t use it at all.

[ata]

You have stated your purpose for the photo. The camera for your purpose is the Canon Eos R6 Mark 2. I don't know the lenses you use, but RF lenses will make your job easier for AF speed and tracking.

[Waddizzle]

Joysticks are quickly losing their usefulness.  Just about the only time I use it is during image playback when I zoom in on an image.  I do not use it change or select AF points.

Moving focus points around is an obsolete technique, IMHO.  It has been for several years, even before Canon released the R series of cameras.  The mid-range and high end Canon DSLRs have been able track subjects/objects fairly well.

Even “focus and recompose” is obsolete.  A better approach is “meter and recompose.”  The AF tracking can keep your subject in focus, within the limits of your AF display points, of course.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

I see how this could be a tough decision.  Only $1k separates these body's now.  You're sitting at 30.3 with your R.  The R62 has all of canons latest AF features, subject tracking and software algorithms.  The R5 is nothing to throw a stick at. It will be receiving another update in June.  Further enhancements to AF and subject tracking being included.

Performance wise R5 20fps, and R62 40fps, electronic shutter.  On paper it looks like a sports photographers dream, but do you really need more than 20?  Both have adequate buffer capacity, but the R5 has nearly double comparatively. The R62 offers 1/2 a stop bump in EV (That's negligeable)    

Ask yourself, can you go back to 24 megapixels? I could not. I primarily shoot landscapes and architecture, detail is extremely important to me.  For many 24 megapixels shot well might be enough. 

Video consideration, the R62 does 4k 60 and 180fps in slo mo.  This is super smooth.  The R5 only does 120fps in slo mo, but you get 8k30.  The R5 has 2 media types, R62 dual SD's if you care.

Visit Flicker and compare some 24 vs 45 MP images. Do the 24mp images meet your standards. If you want 8k video then you'll have to go with the R5. If 24mp and 4k 60 work for you, then the R62.

[ata]

Hello Rick, "It will be receiving another update in June. "

Do you have more information about the content of the update coming in June for the Canon R5 or what's your guess?

[shadowsports]

@ata,

Only what's been rumored and promised for the R5 C and others thus far.  Folks are still clamoring for the Pre-shot buffer amongst other things.  I suspect (unconfirmed) that this will get rolled out on the stills side this summer.  This is what people though they might get when pixel shift was released.  Instead, it looks like Canon decided to pour some additional development into the Cinema line, which is likely to overflow to the R5 as well.  

[ata]

Thanks Rick, we'll wait about a month and see what happens. I hope it releases a useful update to Canon R5 users.😊

[Guyster]

I went from the R to the R5 and have zero remorse.  Trying to track fast moving aircraft with the R was frustrating at times because (as you know) you lose the subject as the viewfinder goes black between frames.  With the R5, that problem is eliminated.  I turned on tracking at an airshow a couple weeks ago, and it works really well even with a Sigma 150-600 which is known to have some AF issues.  I can't speak about the R6 MKII, but I really like the R5.

[Tronhard]

After perusing the thread I have yet to see a budget, which really is the primary factor.  There is no point in suggesting cameras that you cannot afford.

However, you have suggested that you are shoot mountain bike photography. I am curious about what lenses and focal lengths you use and how close you are to the action. 

What do you actually produce?  If you are going to produce large, hi-resolution images for sale, then the demand is much greater than producing smaller images, or for digital display or social media - where the latter downsizes your images significantly.  If you dont' need the resolution, then you can get a cheaper camera and have money left for optics, for example.

If you have a big budget then the R5 might be the way to go, but it's not cheap.  If you are going to be shooting from some distance, then the 45MP may be useful for cropping but if you are closer that advantage may not be worth the cost.
For the ergonomic features and frame rates you have been missing, I would suggest the R6MkII. It has significant improvements over the R6 MkI and has the ability to shoot electronic shutter at up to 40 fps with minimal shutter lag.  The tracking is brilliant in this unit as is the IBIS in working with RF lenses (hence my question on lenses).

I have the R5, R6 and R6II and they are all great cameras, the rest is down to cost, and how and what you create your images. 

[Guyster]

All great points Tronhard.  He mentioned the R5 in his original post, so I assume that's within his budget.  Shooting aircraft is most often by necessity, done at a pretty sizable distance...I can only imagine that shooting mountain bikes is done at much smaller distances, so lens and body choices will be different along the line you suggest (shorter focal length lenses, and less cropping so smaller sensor).  I really like the R5 though.  🐵