Hey Ben6, welcome to the forums.
Personally the choice should be between the R6 Mk II and the R5, the R6 is past it's prime and the MK II had some notable improvements. These are just a few.
- R6 20fps, the R6 II works up to 40fps and resolved most of the rolling shutter challenges
- R6 II has the new multi-function shoe
- Battery Life R6 MkII has an estimated 580 frames in normal mode vs 360 for the R6
- R6 II has received improved software. Improved understanding of the human body, and can track the head or torso better when the face is hidden. Subjects recognition has increased with the R6 II, animals and motorized vehicles now have advanced tracking.
I own both the R5 and R6 MkII, in low light, morning and evening when I do the majority of my wildlife photography I use the the R6 MkII. It simply handles low light better the the R5 and produces less noise. Conversely if the light is good I grab the R5, the 45 MP gives me more flexibility over the 24 MP of the R6 MkII, I have the ability to do a deeper crop and maintain IQ if necessary.
You really can't go wrong with either of these and with software like DXO and Topaz noise has really become a non-issue.
Also, the Sigma 60-600 is a great lens on either body. I would suggest using only the Canon adapter, I test 3rd party adapters and they were all a bust. None of them performed as well as the Canon when it came to speed of focus. Make sure you update the lens firmware, my lens racked on my R bodies until I did the firmware update, then it was smooth sailing. If you don't have a dock DM me, if you are in the states I have an extra I can pass your way.
R6 MkII with the Sigma EF60-600mm
"Or if there is a better Camera not mentioned for Wildlife photography then please do tell."
Hello, Ben!
My wife and I are nature photographers and shoot just about anything that crosses our paths, be it birds, flowers, insects, and any other critter that walks or slithers 🙂 We have both the original R5 and R6 and the mark II of each. The R6 series are primarily used by my wife with the RF 100-400, due to how light the rig is for her, and RF 100mm L Macro. I use the R5 with the RF 200-800 and the R5 II with the RF 100-500mm L and various other RF L lenses. I had the 60-600, but gladly gave up the extra 100mm for L quality and the snappier response of native RF glass over EF. I do have the RF 1.4X tele-converter and, although quite effective when used properly, it doesn't get much use.
R5 mark II, RF 100-500L. This frame was taken from a burst using the pre-continuous shooting feature of the R5 II. IMO, well worth the price of admission, along with the stacked sensor and higher frame rates the R5 II provides. (click the images to get higher res)
R5 mark II, RF 100-500L. This frame was taken from a burst (no pre-shoot) with just tracking.
EOS R5, RF 100-500L. One shot mode.
R5, RF 100-500L. Taken from burst using Face+Tracking (whole area). The R5 and RF 100-500 had no trouble keeping up with this butterfly as it flew erratically from flower to flower. My EF glass failed this test.
R5, RF 100-500L at MFD. This dragon is 2" long.
Now, what you will hear is the R6 series larger photosites, 20 for the R6 and 24 for the R6 mark II, has better low light abilities and better dynamic range (DR), and, that is true. But honestly, I just don't see it as a problem in my day to day as a nature photographer. So I prefer the higher resolution 45mp R5 series, and really like the mark II in particular for its stacked sensor and other features.
Newton
I tried to edit my previous post, but their was no edit option available. I just wanted to add some info about the second bird in my examples.
This bird is called a Cedar Waxwing. Because their feathers are so fine, they have a silky appearance, which makes them appear almost surreal or like a painting from an Audubon book. Really cool birds to photograph. They have a red waxy excretion on the tips of certain wing feathers, hence the name "waxwing". No one knows what the wax is for 🤔
Newton
