So, how many of you will buy the R5 Mk II in the near future?

[AKVet]

So the question is, how many of you will purchase the R5 Mk II...

1. Right away (on the waiting list)
2. Soon, within the next 12 months
3. I will get one, but it will be awhile
4. I do not intend to purchase the R5 Mk II

 

[Dean Wilson]

I do not intend to purchase the R5 Mk II

For me, currently, the features don't justify getting a new camera at this time.

 

[StevenAunan]

I am on the waiting list, and intend to purchase the R5 Mark II. But now that the specs and initial reviews are out, I wonder if an R5 I or R6 II would suit me better. My refurbished R6 was purchased as a "placeholder" while waiting for the R5 II, and I do want to upgrade. But landscapes and street photography don't require the new autofocus, so I am also strongly considering a refurb R5 I.

 

[Only RF]

I'll pass. I'm happy with my R6II. Holding out for the next R7.

 

[RickyRed]

I am on the waiting list, and intend to purchase the R5 Mark II. But now that the specs and initial reviews are out, I wonder if an R5 I or R6 II would suit me better. My refurbished R6 was purchased as a "placeholder" while waiting for the R5 II, and I do want to upgrade. But landscapes and street photography don't require the new autofocus, so I am also strongly considering a refurb R5 I.

R5 Refurb The only downside would be Battery life. Compared to R7,R5 eats battery's, At least two to one. And large files.

 

[Photofarmer]

4

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Been 1 for a while and everything I've heard is why that is.

I could live for years with the original, but for what I shoot it's a step up, and there isn't going to be another step sideways for a while unless I switch systems. I'm hoping for a near-pro level R7II next year, but that's more wish than need.

 

[RedCobra]

1.
On the waiting list at two places.

 

[MikeZ]

No intent to upgrade from the R5 since the new features in the Mark II just aren't significant enough to warrant the cost. Maybe the Mark III

 

[RW2024]

4. Not purchasing R5II, instead waiting for the flood of used R5 to hit the market.

 

[chipman]

As a long range shooter I'm stuck with APSC. Too hard to give up that 1.6x.
If they change the body on the R7ii then I won't be buying any of those either.

 

[Only RF]

As a long range shooter I'm stuck with APSC. Too hard to give up that 1.6x.
If they change the body on the R7ii then I won't be buying any of those either.

At first I didn't really like the QC dial location on the R7. Over time have found it much more natural to use than the traditional placement which is lower down. What I do miss on the R7 is a QC2 dial.

 

[Archibald]

Not buying the II for now.

For me, the R5 was revolutionary. Bought one as soon as I could and it was amazing, and still is. Both body and lens impressed me a lot.

By comparison, the R5 II is incremental. It has some nice features but I don't think they would make much difference to my photos.

 

[KEN_A]

I ordered it on the morning of annoucement. I gather though Canon are already stating like all the other new items there will be a backlog on orders. This covers the batteries and grips as well. Why do they not wait until they have built up stocks before they make the annoncements? It seems it's initial orders have already out stripped the original R5. When I pre-ordered from Park Cameras they said at the time they had only an initial interest. Just hoping I put my pre-order in early enough and not have to wait too long.

 

[Archibald]

I ordered it on the morning of annoucement. I gather though Canon are already stating like all the other new items there will be a backlog on orders. This covers the batteries and grips as well. Why do they not wait until they have built up stocks before they make the annoncements? It seems it's initial orders have already out stripped the original R5. When I pre-ordered from Park Cameras they said at the time they had only an initial interest. Just hoping I put my pre-order in early enough and not have to wait too long.

LOL, waiting until they have stock won't get you your camera earlier.

 

[PKM-UK]

3.5

I may possibly get one - eventually - but it will take a fair while (and I may be under the influence of grape derived products when I place the order).

Karen has said I can have a mkII but the question I asked myself was - 'when was the last time the results I got with the mkI left me disappointed?'.

(I look forward to seeing what the mkII can do in the hands of others with considerable interest, but at present I am more than happy with my mkI).

Phil

 

[Kamoshika]

Leaning toward 2. I really like my R6MII, but the 24mp is often just not enough shooting birds. Will wait for the reviews over the coming months and see if there are any major issues that pop up, but will probably order it late this year.

 

[Bear]

So the question is, how many of you will purchase the R5 Mk II...

1. Right away (on the waiting list)
2. Soon, within the next 12 months
3. I will get one, but it will be awhile
4. I do not intend to purchase the R5 Mk II

4

Perfectly happy with my R5's.

 

[brianh]

Absolutely going to get one but I'm waiting for Canon to do another cash-back offer before ordering

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

For me, the R5 was revolutionary...

By comparison, the R5 II is incremental.

I need to say something about this idea, and it's not a poke at the OP - I'm just borrowing their words.

The R5 was revolutionary because mirrorless tech was new and allowed the revolution. Every brand has fired shots and won battles in that revolution by introducing a new model, sometimes multiple times.

I can't think of a "Mk" release that was ever revolutionary - at least not universally. A "Mk" release is always incremental in nature because it faces the obstacle of introducing as much new tech as possible while avoiding the, "OMG, they're charging 30% more than the Mk X - they should just call it something else", argument. With incremental versions you need to introduce as much new tech as possible while maintaining a price point, and (the point of this post) the customer needs to decide if the changes are exciting enough to make the spend.

The R6 Mk II was amazingly received by reviewers, and many people here grabbed them. I didn't, even as my "Canon guy" kept telling me how much of an improvement it is. If my non-wildlife shooting was more than 10% of what I do I might have thought about it, but honestly outside of just having SD slots I can't think of anything I intrinsic to that body that I felt needed changing for what I shoot.

The R5 Mk II belongs to everyone the R6 Mk II didn't excite - at least that's how I see it. Wildlife, sports, and professional event photographers get a ton of great new features here. If you had a list of things that you wish the R5 didn't do then I'm guessing you got at least some/most of them. If you didn't, that was the idea and enjoy your secondhand Mk I's - but you won't be getting mine. LOL

 

[Only RF]

For any Adobe users getting the R5II.

News - Canon EOS R1 and R5 Mark II Finally Announced!

Dude Paton's Preference for R5ii (over R5 & R1)

rfshooters.com

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

For me, I have a hard time finding any benefit to spending more than what an R6 MkII costs. I don't need the MP, the AF is more than sufficient on the R6MkII, IQ is great. I am planning on starting adventure photography, and maybe I'd need those MP, but probably not. I'm also contemplating not even using a Canon MILC for that. Time will tell, but I'll probably grab another R6MkII when I have the funds or the work requires it.

 

[Only RF]

For me, I have a hard time finding any benefit to spending more than what an R6 MkII costs. I don't need the MP, the AF is more than sufficient on the R6MkII, IQ is great. I am planning on starting adventure photography, and maybe I'd need those MP, but probably not. I'm also contemplating not even using a Canon MILC for that. Time will tell, but I'll probably grab another R6MkII when I have the funds or the work requires it.

I prefer lower MP.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I prefer lower MP.

Could you imagine if someone dropped a 16MP full frame low light monster…

 

[jcass]

Could you imagine if someone dropped a 16MP full frame low light monster…

I can't even remember... what would be your maximum print size on that? Obviously it could be up scaled. But, what would be the trade off with the upscaled image versus a natively higher resolution image with potentially more noise?

 

[AntonLargiader]

3260 x 4900... at 300 dpi you could go 16" wide, 150 dpi gives you 32". Not enough?

 

[jcass]

So, where does noise vs resolution become the determining factor?

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

So, where does noise vs resolution become the determining factor?

That’s probably a difficult to determine because it’s subjective. I could see a 16 MP FF with all current processor tech being advantageous to sports and event photographers that typically to shoot in poor light.

 

[AntonLargiader]

IMO they feel that Canon is pulling that off pretty well at 24 MP.