Weighing the 5Dsr against the R5 for architecture.

[KenJones_NJ]

I primarily shoot architecture, the exteriors, and the interiors of buildings and always use a tripod. I also shoot various heavy construction machinery & equipment, which I also shoot with a tripod as well as hand-held.

I'm currently shooting a 30MP Canon EOS R, but I'm looking to increase the file sizes to be able to crop in without degrading the image quality, which is the reason for considering the 5Ds r and the R5. And since I also have a Canon R6 II, I don't need either the 5Ds r or the R5 for the occasional video shoot. I'm also going to keep the R as an emergency backup for whatever body I decide to buy.

The big question mark in my mind is whether it's worth spending $1,500 more for the R5 over the 5Ds r?

I'd appreciate some guidance on this issue.

[p4pictures]

I'd go for the EOS R5 just for the options it has to help manual focus. Since you mentioned architecture I think you might also use a tilt-shift lens? If so the focus guide and manual focus peaking on the mirrorless models is a godsend and worth the cost increase. The EOS R5 is a step forward in quality over the EOS 5DSR and there's little difference between 45MP (8192 x 5464) pixels and 50MP (8688 x 5792 pixels).

[KenJones_NJ · Accepted solution]

Thanks for the comment. And, yes. I do use a tilt-shift lens on the appropriate occasion, which, as you know, are all manual focus lenses and have to be adapted to the RF mount, as well.

However, since I rarely shoot above ISO 100 and frequently shoot multiple exposures of the same shot to get a better blend of highlights (NOT HDR), I don't know that the focus peaking feature would be of sufficient significance to justify the extra $1,500.

That said, I have considered selling my (virtually new and rarely used) R6 II to justify buying either a new R5 (at a substantial discount) or a very lightly used one, with the difference in cost being about the same as it would cost to buy a used 5Dsr and keep the R6 II. (Gee, I hope I stated that clearly enough.😁)

I agree that the ±10% sensor size difference between the 5Dsr and R5 isn't really a concern, especially considering that the R5 has a much better processor and 4.40 µm photo sites vs the 5Dsr's older processor and smaller 4.14µm photo sites.

Thanks for your input. It's certainly worth further consideration of the R5.