I'm still thinking of buying the R5 mark II. Should I or should I wait? I BOUGHT IT!!!

[Levina de Ruijter]

They should hold one for me after all ever since I went to digital and my camera store a mile away closed about 20 years ago I have bought everything except a couple lenses from them, about 9 or 10 DSLRS, and probably 15 lenses.

Yes, you've been a great customer to them so they should do this as a service to you. It's really not asking too much.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

Yes, you've been a great customer to them so they should do this as a service to you. It's really not asking too much.

The only two things, well at least 2 of the things I am looking at are High ISO performance and Dynamic Range.

High ISO, will compare it to the R6ii and my guess is that it will be hard to see a difference and it can be handled in post...

Dynamic Range, I have heard several reviewers say the DR or IQ is not up to the R6ii we will see but for landscapes and colorful shots I have my 5D Classic which has great color rendition!

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

The only two things, well at least 2 of the things I am looking at are High ISO performance and Dynamic Range.

High ISO, will compare it to the R6ii and my guess is that it will be hard to see a difference and it can be handled in post...

Dynamic Range, I have heard several reviewers say the DR or IQ is not up to the R6ii we will see but for landscapes and colorful shots I have my 5D Classic which has great color rendition!

I thought that dynamic range issue was between the R5 and the R5II. Which is a trade off for the stacked sensor in the mark II, which the original R5 doesn't have.

I don't know if the R6II has better dynamic range than the R5II. I would think it's the other way around as the R5II has a lot more pixels on subject, but maybe that is a faulty way of thinking.

As to noise at higher ISO's. I don't know. I have the R6II but I have never shot the R6II above ISO 4000 and that only twice I think. I do know that the noise on the R5II is fine and easy to remove.

Maybe the guys can chime in: @Jan1977 @pcs

 

[pcs]

I thought that dynamic range issue was between the R5 and the R5II. Which is a trade off for the stacked sensor in the mark II, which the original R5 doesn't have.

I don't know if the R6II has better dynamic range than the R5II. I would think it's the other way around as the R5II has a lot more pixels on subject, but maybe that is a faulty way of thinking.

As to noise at higher ISO's. I don't know. I have the R6II but I have never shot the R6II above ISO 4000 and that only twice I think. I do know that the noise on the R5II is fine and easy to remove.

Maybe the guys can chime in: @Jan1977 @pcs

Never used a R6 I/II so no comment on that except when comparing R6 with R5 sensors you should up or down res. one of them to compare apples to apples.

The r5II is supposed to have a worse sensor(new stacked design, seems al stacked sensors are a bit less) regarding noise and DR. But it's so little I've not seen a difference when I switched R5 to R5II.

Some well meant advice for Jeff. Looking at your photos, seeing the conditions you often shoot in(far away in combination with haze, heat shimmer etc.), even if you buy the newest, most expensive camera you will not get much improvement. I think I've shown I can take a sharp picture with my equipment but if the conditions are against me even my gear(i.e. me) fails to get something decent.

 

[pcs]

Here are some examples of the impact of heat haze and distance. No amount of gear could get these pin-sharp with the air as it was.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

Never used a R6 I/II so no comment on that except when comparing R6 with R5 sensors you should up or down res. one of them to compare apples to apples.

The r5II is supposed to have a worse sensor(new stacked design, seems al stacked sensors are a bit less) regarding noise and DR. But it's so little I've not seen a difference when I switched R5 to R5II.

Some well meant advice for Jeff. Looking at your photos, seeing the conditions you often shoot in(far away in combination with haze, heat shimmer etc.), even if you buy the newest, most expensive camera you will not get much improvement. I think I've shown I can take a sharp picture with my equipment but if the conditions are against me even my gear(i.e. me) fails to get something decent.

You are correct of course, and that is what I have been thinking/remembering "it is not the gear it is the photographer" In the early morning hours while laying in bed waiting for 5:45 am to get up I have been considering what I want with gear and have been realizing that I am just an average photographer who likes gear rather than needing the latest and greatest.
It is funny because I am just the opposite when it comes to cars, I have always gotten over 200,000 miles on my cars and 330,000 on my Chevy Astro van before it fell apart LOL. I say that if it gets me where I want to go that is all I need. Right now my wife and I have 2, hers is a 1998 Lexus with 210k and she loves it because it used to belong to our late son, and my is my 2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee with 226k, don't need the latest and greatest

BUT cameras, I just plain love cameras! If film and developing weren't so expensive I would get out with my Hasselblad 1000F or Mamiya TLR's more.

While I will still rent the R5ii for a week to see what it is about I am thinking that with my so so skills and challenging shooting conditions, I know why they call this area "New England" we get 1 day a week if we are lucky where you see the sun, I am not sure that slightly better AF and more pixels will make that much of a difference.

I need to work on getting closer and sharper shots by holding better etc.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

There is one lake where I can get right on the birds and have gotten a lot of good shots there, the problem is it is in a bad area, while there are families who feed the birds there there is also a lot of drug activity and going alone there I always worry about safety.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

There is one lake where I can get right on the birds and have gotten a lot of good shots there, the problem is it is in a bad area, while there are families who feed the birds there there is also a lot of drug activity and going alone there I always worry about safety.

Jeff, no photo is worth taking that kind of risk. Don’t go there or don’t go there alone.

Patrick made some good points. All true. But regardless of shooting conditions, and all things being equal, it still helps to get more pixels on the subject and in this regard the R5II might serve you better than the R7 as the R5II’s sensor is substantially better.

To compare the R5II with the R6II is a bit like comparing apples and oranges as one is 45mpx the other 24mpx. The R6II will probably have less noise at high ISO than the R5II as larger pixels have a better signal to noise ratio but 24mpx cannot give you the reach you need at the pond. I think the camera to set the R5II against is the R7, the camera you use when you need reach. For birds that are close, in your yard or at the pond, the R6II is brilliant.

 

[pcs]

There is one lake where I can get right on the birds and have gotten a lot of good shots there, the problem is it is in a bad area, while there are families who feed the birds there there is also a lot of drug activity and going alone there I always worry about safety.

Jeff, no photo is worth taking that kind of risk. Don’t go there or don’t go there alone.

Yes, safety first!

Patrick made some good points. All true. But regardless of shooting conditions, and all things being equal, it still helps to get more pixels on the subject and in this regard the R5II might serve you better than the R7 as the R5II’s sensor is substantially better.

I agree, more and better pixels on subject matter, just warning for unrealistic expectations.

To compare the R5II with the R6II is a bit like comparing apples and oranges as one is 45mpx the other 24mpx. The R6II will probably have less noise at high ISO than the R5II as larger pixels have a better signal to noise ratio but 24mpx cannot give you the reach you need at the pond. I think the camera to set the R5II against is the R7, the camera you use when you need reach. For birds that are close, in your yard or at the pond, the R6II is brilliant.

True, I meant if you want to compare the noise you should either down res. to R5II to 24mp or up res. the R6II to 45mp before comparing.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

True, I meant if you want to compare the noise you should either down res. to R5II to 24mp or up res. the R6II to 45mp before comparing.

Oh right. I kinda missed that part in your post. Yes, absolutely!