0
\$\begingroup\$

I just wondering if anyone has had any experience in upgrading to the Canon R5? I do mainly studio work.

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ What do you think you will be able to do with the R5 that you can't do with the 5D Mark IV? What photos will the R5 allow you to take that you can't take now? \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Nov 16 at 23:06

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3
\$\begingroup\$

For "studio" work it depends.

Is your studio work of inanimate objects that don't move?

There's no significant benefit to the R5. It's all about lighting. If you've got money burning a hole in your pocket, spend it on flashes or modifiers. But be able to articulate how the newer lighting gear will let you take shots you can't get now, or at the very least make it easier and quicker to do what you're doing now.

Is your studio work of posed people who are not moving?

See above. There's no real difference, unless you're looking for very narrow depth of field and having problems with accurate focusing with you current camera and lenses. Even then, the issue may not be the camera, it might be the lens(es) or your technique.

Is your studio work of people or animals in motion? With water or powder or spinning light bars, burning steel wool, etc. flying around?

Then perhaps the superior abilities of the R5 to autofocus on difficult moving subjects might be worth it for you if such work could increase your income enough to cover the cost of the new camera.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

Your question invites opinionated answers, I will try to stay a bit objective. Please note that I don't own neither camera, but also switched from a DSLR to a mirrorless camera.

What you can expect from the upgrade

  • The autofocus system of a mirrorless is usually far better than the DSLR counterparts. Especially with the newest revision of the R5 (mk2) you get something that is pretty much as good as it gets. Reliable eye autofocus can make things really easy for portraiture.
  • If you do tethering, the file transfer speed will improve
  • If you use constant light sources, you will get a reliable preview
  • You will get more resolution. If your work profits from that, Canon also offers the glass to serve that resolution, albeit for a hefty price. Top line RF glasses are currently just pretty superb in image quality.
  • You probably get a bit more dynamic range and high ISO performance, although I would not overrate that. And unless you are using only constant lights, that is probably irrelevant in studio.
  • If you use the video functions, you get a bit more modes to play with. Most likely also irrelevant in studio.
  • Also not too important for studio work: The image stabilizer is really good.
  • If you are getting a kick out of new gear, expect a lot of cool stuff. But you will pay for it with the transition period to the new controls layout.

What you probably will not get from the upgrade

  • If you own good glass, while the new top glass by Canon is amazing, I would not expect leaps in image quality.
  • If you plan on adapting your EF glass, the autofocus will not quite perform as good as native RF glass. The adapter is pretty good according to reviewers, but the current glass usually has fasters motors. So you can expect anything between a bit better than on the old camera due to the more modern AF system and computational power behind it to about as good as before on the old cam.
Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've not seen anyone who says their Canon EF glass doesn't AF at least as fast and as accurate when using an R5 or R5 Mark II as it did with their 5D Mark IV. In some use cases it's more accurate due to the better AF logic and processing power of the newer RF camera bodies. There's no drop off in lens performance when using EF lenses on RF bodies. It's just that the newer RF glass is a little faster than the EF glass, and sometimes sharper. But the EF glass is just as fast/accurate/sharp with R bodies as with their corresponding EF bodies (R5 vs 5DIV, R6 vs 6DII, R3 vs 1D X II/III, etc.). \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Nov 16 at 23:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ DR and high ISO should never enter into a discussion of studio performance. Studio work should be all about lights and modifiers. If you need more DR and high ISO performance in a studio setting, spend that money on lights and light shapers, not on a marginally better (for that use case) camera body. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Nov 16 at 23:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MichaelC Regarding the lighting: In general yes, but especially in portraiture your models will have a hard time when you are using constant lights in the same strength that you can use flash lights. Eyes can only adjust so much for very bright lights. So if you are using constant lights ISO performance can be a thing, although you are probably seldom using lights that weak that this should cause issues with ANY modern camera. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kai Mattern
    Commented Nov 17 at 8:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kai_Mattern Constant lights for studio still portraits? Ewww! youtu.be/nIewTXCAqzA?si=BIC-_3qU5o7yuyXa \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Nov 20 at 3:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MichaelC Yo! Not exactly my cup of tea, but there are even some famous photographers that swear by it. Vincent Peters for example likes big HMI lights for indoors stuff. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kai Mattern
    Commented Nov 21 at 6:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.