The Canon EOS R5 Compared

36Share

When Canon officially released the EOS R5, things changed. No longer was the 5D series, or perhaps even the 1D series, what you needed for a "pro" camera body. The R series just about proved it can hold its own against the giants in the industry. How exactly does it compare to these existing Canon offerings and a few of its main competitors? You're about to find out, below.

As for rules, I'll be judging the cameras based on their most likely uses. If a camera is designed for video production, then video specs will hold more weight. If another option is commonly found on the side of a football match, then sports and action features will be more important in the framing of each comparison. It will not, however, be weighted for price. And keep in mind that it’ll be near impossible for us to broadly explain how one camera might be a better camera. Just because one may appear to be “better,” that doesn't mean it's a better camera for you.

The Comparisons:
EOS 5D Mark IV
EOS-1D X Mark III
EOS R6
Sony a7R IV
Nikon Z 7
Panasonic Lumix S1H
FUJIFILM GFX 50S

EOS R5 vs EOS 5D Mark IV

Oh boy. This is the real comparison—even if it is a little unfair. I say unfair because the R5 has technology that is at least four years more advanced than the 5D Mark IV. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value; we do compare current generations to their predecessors upon release and there is a feeling that the R5 is the true successor to the 5D line. Will that hold true? Honestly, I don't have an answer, but right now if you want the current "pro" full-frame camera from Canon, I think the R5 is the one to beat.

EOS R5

Feature

EOS 5D Mark IV

45MP Full-Frame CMOS

Sensor

30MP Full-Frame CMOS

Canon RF

(EF via Optional Adapter)

Lens Mount

Canon EF

ISO 100-51200

(Extended: ISO 50-102400)

Sensitivity

ISO 100-32000

(Extended: ISO 50-102400)

5-Axis In-Body (8 Stops)

Stabilization

None

8K raw up to 30p

4K up to 120p

Video

4K up to 30p

Dual Pixel CMOS AF II

(100% coverage, 1,053 points)

Autofocus

Optical: 61-Point Phase-Detect

Live View: Dual Pixel CMOS AF (80% coverage)

0.5" 5.76m-dot OLED EVF

Viewfinder

0.71x Optical Viewfinder

3.2" 2.1m-dot

Articulating Touchscreen

Screen

3.2" 1.62m-dot

Fixed Touchscreen

Electronic: 20 fps

Mechanical: 12 fps

Continuous Shooting

7 fps

- The EOS R5 wins on nearly every level when it comes to specs. It's faster, more sensitive, offers greater resolution, better 8K and 4K video, etc.

- When it comes to lenses, the R5 is more versatile. The RF mount supports newer RF lenses, as well as existing EF glass via optional adapters. The 5D is limited to EF lenses only.

- If you are a die-hard DSLR user, the R5's EVF is the closest yet to an optical viewfinder. It's ultra-high resolution and, perhaps more importantly, it has a high refresh rate option of 120 fps. However, if you need an optical finder, you'll have to stick with the 5D.

- The newer sensor of the R5 provides better resolution and sensitivity compared to the 5D.

- Video is no contest; the R5 offers more for video shooters, including 8K raw up to 30p and 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 up to 120p. All of this can be saved internally to the CFexpress slot. The 5D Mark IV is limited to 4K up to 30p in 8-bit 4:2:2 internally. The R5 also comes with Canon Log, while the 5D requires an optional, paid upgrade.

- Autofocus is interesting, because the 5D Mark IV has two systems: a conventional 61-point phase-detect sensor when using the optical finder, and Canon's Dual Pixel CMOS AF tech covering 80% of the sensor for live-view shooting. The EOS R5 is a better version of the 5D's AF tech with more selectable points and complete coverage of the image area.

- In-body stabilization is only available on the R5. That's that. It is also rated at up to 8 stops, which is incredible.

- The R5 is significantly faster, as it can reach up to 20 fps with an electronic shutter and 12 fps with the mechanical. The 5D is limited to just 7 fps.

Final Thoughts: Don't be afraid to upgrade! The EOS R5 is worthy of the 5 series with its notable upgrades, and it offers the same well-rounded feature set for outstanding versatility.

^ BACK TO TOP ^

EOS R5 vs EOS-1D X Mark III

Surprised? I am, too. I never would have thought that you could ever compare a full-size DSLR like the EOS-1D X Mark III to a mirrorless camera. At least, not this soon. I was expecting this moment to come a few years down the line. The key points to look at here are how well the R5 and 1D compare when it comes to sports, action, and photojournalism.

EOS R5

Feature

EOS-1D X Mark III

45MP Full-Frame CMOS

Sensor

20MP Full-Frame CMOS

Canon RF

(EF via Optional Adapter)

Lens Mount

Canon EF

ISO 100-51200

(Extended: ISO 50-102400)

Sensitivity

ISO 100-102400

(Extended: ISO 50-819200)

5-Axis In-Body (8 Stops)

Stabilization

None

8K raw up to 30p

4K up to 120p

Video

5.5K raw up to 60p

4K up to 60p

Dual Pixel CMOS AF II

(100% coverage, 1,053 points)

Autofocus

Live View: Dual Pixel CMOS AF (90% coverage, 525 points)

0.5" 5.76m-dot OLED EVF

Viewfinder

0.76x Optical Viewfinder

3.2" 2.1m-dot

Articulating Touchscreen

Screen

3.2" 2.1m-dot

Fixed Touchscreen

Electronic: 20 fps

Mechanical: 12 fps

Continuous Shooting

Electronic: 20 fps

Mechanical: 16 fps

Optional accessory

Vertical Grip

Yes, integrated

- The EOS R5 and EOS-1D X Mark III are similar in specs, but very different when it comes to design.

- The EOS-1D X Mark III has a more traditional full-size "pro" body with an integrated grip and advanced connectivity, such as an Ethernet port and GPS.

- A mirrorless design and some trimming of physical features mean that the EOS R5 has a much smaller body.

- Image quality is an even match with pros and cons to each. The 1D has a lower-resolution but more sensitive 20MP sensor, which permits longer bursts with ease and smoother transfers via networking. The R5 has a higher resolution but is less sensitive and fills up card space quickly. Also, the R5 enables more cropping. Pick your poison.

- Again, the EOS R5 has in-body stabilization while the 1D does not.

- For sports and action, the 1D X Mark III squeaks out a win. The faster mechanical shutter guarantees performance in more environments, such as a poorly lit gymnasium, where electronic shutters may suffer.

- Video is interesting. The EOS R5 offers greater video resolution with 8K up to 30p and faster speeds with 4K up to 120p. However, the 1D X Mark III benefits from offering a mid-range 5.5K resolution up to 60p, though it is limited to 4K at 60p. While the 4K is not as fast, I would say the 5.5K raw is much more practical concerning storage. I'd argue the 1D X Mark III's video is more practical, but the R5 offers technically better performance.

Final Thoughts: This was a tough comparison, and I would love to hear your thoughts in the Comments section, but for demanding professionals—especially sports photographers—working on tight deadlines, the edge should go to the 1D X Mark III. It's just a few months old, so the tech is quite close, and it offers numerous advantages to operability and reliability that the R5 isn't yet able to top. In addition to those points, I find the 1D's video specs to be more reasonable, while still being exceptional. For your everyday shooter or perhaps someone looking for higher resolution or a more comprehensive solution for general imaging the R5 still is a better choice.

^ BACK TO TOP ^

EOS R5 vs EOS R6

We couldn't continue this conversation without comparing both new R series releases: the R5 and R6. The R5 is meant to stand as the top dog in the lineup, but that doesn't mean everyone needs all that power—at least not all the time. I'm looking into this comparison to help find out if you need an R5 or would be better off with an R6.

EOS R5

Feature

EOS R6

45MP Full-Frame CMOS

Sensor

20MP Full-Frame CMOS

Canon RF

(EF via Optional Adapter)

Lens Mount

Canon RF

(EF via Optional Adapter)

ISO 100-51200

(Extended: ISO 50-102400)

Sensitivity

ISO 100-102400

(Extended: ISO 50-819200)

5-Axis In-Body (8 Stops)

Stabilization

5-Axis In-Body (8 Stops)

8K raw up to 30p

4K up to 120p

Video

4K up to 60p

Dual Pixel CMOS AF II

(100% coverage, 1,053 points)

Autofocus

Dual Pixel CMOS AF II

(100% coverage, 1053 points)

0.5" 5.76m-dot OLED EVF

Viewfinder

0.5" 3.69m-dot OLED EVF

3.2" 2.1m-dot

Articulating Touchscreen

Screen

3.2" 2.1m-dot

Articulating Touchscreen

Electronic: 20 fps

Mechanical: 12 fps

Continuous Shooting

Electronic: 20 fps

Mechanical: 16 fps

Yes

Top-Status LCD

No

1 x CFexpress (Type B)

1 x SD (UHS-II)

Card Slots

2 x SD (UHS-II)

2.4/5GHz Wi-Fi
Bluetooth
Optional WFT-R10A

Wireless

2.4GHz Wi-Fi

Bluetooth

- First glance would maybe lead you to believe these cameras are very similar. They are close on the outside, but they vary significantly when it comes to the internals.

- The sensors are the biggest difference, with the R5 using the high-res 45MP and the R6 using the more sensitive 20MP.

- Both have the same in-body stabilization and Dual Pixel CMOS AF II systems.

- The EVF on the R5 will be clearer and sharper with its greater 5.76m-dot resolution.

- The R5 offers a fast CFexpress (Type B) card slot in addition to a single SD (UHS-II). The R6 has two, matching SD slots.

- Continuous shooting specs are the same between the cameras.

- Body design is slightly different: The R5 has a top LCD and extra dials that the R6 does not have.

- For wireless connectivity, the R5 has faster 5GHz Wi-Fi and can work with the optional WFT-R10A Wireless File Transmitter to add wired/wireless LAN options.

Final Thoughts: Are you surprised the EOS R5 is a better camera than the R6? You shouldn't be; it is positioned as such. However, the R6 is going to be the right camera for more people. It's more affordable and offers still quite impressive specs. This value vertically should not be overlooked. If you don't need the higher resolution or the 8K video capabilities of the R5, get the R6, save some cash, and be happy.

^ BACK TO TOP ^

EOS R5 vs Sony Alpha a7R IV

Now we are getting into the real battles by pitting the Canon EOS R5 against one of its competitors—the Sony Alpha a7R IV. First, I must say that this comparison is based on very limited experience with the R5 and too much time spent with the Sony a7R IV. Also, I like to think I'm optimistic, overall.

EOS R5

Feature

a7R IV

45MP Full-Frame CMOS

Sensor

61MP Full-Frame CMOS

Canon RF

(EF via Optional Adapter)

Lens Mount

Sony E

(A via Optional Adapter)

ISO 100-51200

(Extended: ISO 50-102400)

Sensitivity

ISO 100-32000

(Extended: ISO 50-102400)

5-Axis In-Body (8 Stops)

Stabilization

5-Axis In-Body (5.5 Stops)

8K raw up to 30p

4K up to 120p (10-bit)

Video

4K up to 30p (8-bit)

Dual Pixel CMOS AF II

(100% coverage, 1,053 points)

Autofocus

On-Sensor Phase-Detect

(74% coverage, 567 points)

0.5" 5.76m-dot OLED EVF

Viewfinder

0.5" 5.76m-dot OLED EVF

3.2" 2.1m-dot

Articulating Touchscreen

Screen

3" 1.44m-dot

Tilting Touchscreen

Electronic: 20 fps

Mechanical: 12 fps

Continuous Shooting

10 fps

No

Multi-Shot Modes

Yes, up to 240MP

- Image quality will likely be similar between the cameras, so the extra resolution of the a7RIV puts it a little ahead of the R5, even though the R5 should offer slightly better low-light performance. Also, multi-shot modes on the a7R IV can vastly improve select types of imaging.

- For video, the Canon EOS R5 is the clear champion. If we compare like specs, the 4K options, the Canon beats the Sony in resolutions (DCI and UHD vs just UHD) and frame rates (up to 120p vs 30p) and bit depth (10-bit vs 8-bit). It's no contest, even before we get to the R5's 8K raw recording.

- Autofocus is close, and early tests would put the R5 in the lead—just barely. Although the a7R IV has been around longer, leading to more firmware updates than Canon's latest Dual Pixel CMOS AF II, limited experiences show that the R5 does perform very well, so I'd lean on the side that Canon has made notable improvements. There is more advanced people/face/eye/animal-detection, which puts the total feature set on par with the a7R IV.

- Also, Canon's ability to hit 100% coverage with phase-detection tech is huge.

- Lenses make this comparison a bit more interesting. Sony has been moving full-speed ahead with lens development and offers multiple times the number of native lenses for its E mount compared to Canon's still-fledgling RF mount. However, Canon has had great success with its powerful EF adapter lineup and it has a larger overall library than Sony. Canon has even been a bit more experimental with its RF lenses, releasing unique glass, such as the RF 800mm f/11 and RF 28-70mm f/2L. I'd keep an eye on Canon, going forward.

- For sports and action, if you want the fastest option, the R5 has double the speed at 20 fps. However, the greater resolution of the a7R IV gives it a more viable cropping option when extended reach is required.

- Both cameras offer advanced in-body image stabilization, although the R5 is rated to be better.

- EVFs are similar between the cameras, but the R5 has a better rear screen that fully articulates and has a higher resolution.

Final Thoughts: This is an interesting comparison where they trade off on certain specs. If you are buying your first camera and these are the two you need to look deeper—at the systems as a whole. If you are already invested (much more likely) I can't advise anyone to jump ship from one to the other. Canon shooters stick with Canon and Sony shooters stick with Sony. One thing to think about is native lenses. Canon's R lineup is still growing, although it is looking better every day and EF adapter do a wonderful job. Sony already has a solid setup, and likely has more on the horizon. It's close for reasons beyond specs.

^ BACK TO TOP ^

EOS R5 vs Nikon Z 7

Why put the R5 up against the Nikon Z 7? Well, I was curious, and I'm sure many of you are, too. We couldn't show how a new Canon camera stacks up without comparing it to a Nikon. The Z 7 is close in resolution and has some solid video options. There is a significant difference when it comes to price, with the Z 7 being much more affordable, which is absolutely something to consider.

EOS R5

Feature

Z 7

45MP Full-Frame CMOS

Sensor

45MP Full-Frame CMOS

Canon RF

(EF via Optional Adapter)

Lens Mount

Nikon Z

(F via Optional Adapter)

ISO 100-51200

(Extended: ISO 50-102400)

Sensitivity

ISO 64-25600

(Extended: ISO 32-102400)

5-Axis In-Body (8 Stops)

Stabilization

5-Axis In-Body (5 Stops)

8K raw up to 30p

4K up to 120p (10-bit)

Video

4K up to 30p

Yes, Internal (8K Only)

Raw Video

Yes, via HDMI (Firmware)

Dual Pixel CMOS AF II

(100% coverage, 1,053 points)

Autofocus

493-Point Phase-Detect

0.5" 5.76m-dot OLED EVF

Viewfinder

3.6m-dot OLED EVF

3.2" 2.1m-dot

Articulating Touchscreen

Screen

3.2" 2.1m-dot

Tilting Touchscreen

Electronic: 20 fps

Mechanical: 12 fps

Continuous Shooting

9 fps

1 x CFexpress (Type B)

1 x SD (UHS-II)

Card Slots

1 x CFexpress (Type B)

- While interesting to see the same resolution from the Nikon Z 7 and Canon EOS R5, the R5's newer tech promises better image quality, especially when it comes to low-light sensitivity.

- Nikon and Canon are in similar positions when it comes to native and adapted lens options.

- While the Z 7 has a capable autofocus system, the R5 and Dual Pixel CMOS AF II promise better focusing performance, as well as faster continuous shooting up to 20 fps.

- Both systems offer in-body image stabilization, although the R5 is rated to be more effective.

- For video, the R5 offers significantly more recording options, including internal 8K raw and 10-bit recording. The R5 also has faster frame rates, including 4K up to 120p. The Z 7 is no slouch, but is limited to 4K up to 30p and requires the use of HDMI output to realize 10-bit recording or raw video via an external recorder.

- Body designs are close, but the R5 offers a bit more to shooters, with dual card slots, a fully articulating touchscreen, and a sharper EVF.

Final Thoughts: If money is no object, the EOS R5 is a better camera. However, that's a big "if." For example, if you are an existing Nikon shooter looking to move to mirrorless, then Nikon's adapter solution might make way more sense. Also, for stills alone the Z 7 is certainly strong competition, it’s when we start looking at needing a hybrid situation that Canon might seem more appealing.

^ BACK TO TOP ^

EOS R5 vs Panasonic Lumix S1H

Calling back to the 5D's legendary legacy as a shockingly powerful video camera, the R5 is looking to reclaim the top spot of hybrid photo/video camera. Its biggest competition comes from the full-frame Panasonic Lumix S1H. Designed specifically to be that killer video-shooting mirrorless, it would make sense as a major competitor to the R5.

EOS R5

Feature

Lumix S1H

45MP Full-Frame CMOS

Sensor

24MP Full-Frame CMOS

Canon RF

(EF via Optional Adapter)

Lens Mount

Leica L

ISO 100-51200

(Extended: ISO 50-102400)

Sensitivity

ISO 100-51200

(Extended: ISO 50-204800)

5-Axis In-Body (8 Stops)

Stabilization

5-Axis In-Body (6 Stops)

8K raw up to 30p

4K up to 120p

Video

6K up to 24p

4K up to 60p

8K: 20 min

4K60: 25 min

All: 30 min

Recording Limit

None

Yes, Internal (8K Only)

Raw Video

Yes, via HDMI (Firmware)

Canon Log, HDR

Other Video Features

V-Log, HDR, Dual Native ISO, Timecode Input

Dual Pixel CMOS AF II

(100% coverage, 1,053 points)

Autofocus

DFD Autofocus (225 areas)

0.5" 5.76m-dot OLED EVF

Viewfinder

5.76m-dot OLED EVF

3.2" 2.1m-dot

Articulating Touchscreen

Screen

3.2" 2.33m-dot

Articulating Touchscreen

- For general imaging, the R5 has a higher-resolution 45MP sensor, while the S1H sticks with a conventional 24MP option.

- Video is going to be close between the R5 and S1H.

- The R5 offers technically better video specs, with 8K raw up to 30p and 4K up to 120p.

- The S1H has more practical video specs, including 6K up to 24p, 5.9K up to 30p, and 4K up to 60p. Panasonic's upcoming raw output will save space compared to Canon's internal-only raw.

- Both cameras have in-body image stabilization.

- The S1H has no recording limit, while the R5 has a 30-minute maximum, and extra restrictions on 8K and 4K recording.

- For advanced video, the R5 has Canon Log and HDR, while the S1H offers V-Log, HDR, Dual Native ISO, and support for timecode input.

- The Panasonic S1H is Netflix certified.

- The R5's Dual Pixel CMOS AF II will perform notably faster and more accurately than the S1H's DFD Autofocus system.

- Screens, viewfinders, and body designs are quite equivalent.

Final Thoughts: If you are looking for a camera to do mostly video, the Panasonic S1H has clear advantages over the R5. With a Netflix certification, timecode, no time limits, and a very practical 5.9K raw output coming soon, among plenty of other video-specific features, the S1H is a more sensible pro video camera. But, it's also more expensive and does less on the photography side. One critical feature left to consider is autofocus, since the R5's Dual Pixel CMOS AF II system is leaps and bounds above the S1H's AF performance.

^ BACK TO TOP ^

EOS R5 vs FUJIFILM GFX 50S

Interesting. Very interesting. Are we now comparing full-frame to medium format? Yup. There are plenty of real advantages to medium format, which is why we aren't daring to make a comparison with the GFX 100, but sticking with the FUJIFILM GFX 50S here. The biggest pluses for the larger format are generally resolution and dynamic range. However, we have seen the gap close dramatically in recent years, while also watching the price gap between the two formats shrink. If you are looking for a new imaging system, you just might be able to choose between either full-frame or medium format these days.

EOS R5

Feature

GFX 50S

45MP Full-Frame CMOS

Resolution

51MP 44 x 33mm CMOS

Canon RF

(EF via Optional Adapter)

Lens Mount

FUJIFILM G

ISO 100-51200

(Extended: ISO 50-102400)

Sensitivity

ISO 100-12800

(Extended: 50-102400)

5-Axis In-Body (8 Stops)

Stabilization

None

8K raw up to 30p

4K up to 120p

Video

Full HD up to 30p

Dual Pixel CMOS AF II

(100% coverage, 1,053 points)

Autofocus

117-Point Contrast-Detect

0.5" 5.76m-dot OLED EVF

Viewfinder

0.5" 3.69m-dot OLED EVF

3.2" 2.1m-dot

Articulating Touchscreen

Screen

3.2" 2.36m-dot

Tilting Touchscreen

Electronic: 20 fps

Mechanical: 12 fps

Continuous Shooting

3 fps

Surprisingly, the R5's next-generation 45MP sensor comes very close in overall resolution, and still offers benefits such as improved sensitivity and speed. The R5 is a better choice for overall image quality, unless you need the GFX's medium-format look.

- The R5 absolutely dominates when it comes to video performance.

- Canon offers an advanced 8-stop in-body image stabilizer while the FUJIFILM does not.

- Even general handling is better on the EOS R5, with a higher-resolution EVF and fully articulating touchscreen.

- Dual Pixel CMOS AF II on the R5 is going to be faster and more responsive than the GFX 50S's contrast-only system. Add on the superior continuous shooting of the R5 and you have a capable action camera, where the GFX will struggle.

Final Thoughts: Unless you absolutely need medium format—and you know who you are—I would vote the Canon R5 over the FUJIFILM GFX 50S for most people. The place the GFX wins is in sensor size, which isn’t nothing, and it also wins just barely in resolution, while the R5 offers a much more versatile shooting experience.

^ BACK TO TOP ^


That was a lot. Keep in mind, much of this is based on limited hands-on experience, and some is based solely on specs. There are many things we can tell about a camera by looking at the technical info, and there's a lot we just won't know until people have the R5 in their hands for months to get a true read on it.

Let us know in the Comments section, below, if there's another camera you'd like us to compare to the R5, or if you want us to do a deeper, hands-on comparison with any of these pairs once we get the cameras in our hands for an extended testing period.

If you need help finding your next camera, please reach out with questions in the Comments section, or talk to our helpful staff via Chat, by phone (800.606.6969 or 212.444.6615), or by visiting the B&H SuperStore in New York.

Items discussed in article

36 Comments

Great information ... thank you!

I was getting ready to pull the trigger on the Sony a7R IV and along came Canon's R5. Is there much of a difference in size and weight?  Also are Sony's lenses more compact than Canons'? I have been lugging around the 5D line and Canon L lenses for way too long. Looking to go as light as possible.

Hi Susan,

In terms of size and weight, there are some minor differences between both cameras. The EOS R5 measures 5.43 x 3.84 x 3.46" and weighs 1.62 lbs. That is only slightly larger and heavier than the A7R IV at its measurements of 5.07 x 3.8 x 3.05" and a weight of 1.46 lbs.  Many of Sony lenses are small, but the higher end Sony FE lenses are roughly in the same size/weight as the Canon RF lenses. Being that you're coming from a 5D series body and L series lenses, going with the EOS R5 would provide the easiest transition since the menu layout is familiar. 
 

I would like to see it compared to the Panasonic S1R. 
 

Thanks for this article!

That’s a great idea. I’ll see what I can do!

EF mount lenses have been compatible with Sony E-mount cameras via optional adapters even before Canon had an RF mount system. That gives the A7R4 a huge advantage in lens selection over the R5. If this was a serious comparison, then please test the performance of both cameras with EF lenses using the most popular brand adapters in the market like Metabones, Sigma, Viltrox, etc., as well as Canon's own adapters. The test should also include 3rd party lenses, not just Canon lenses.

Hi Philip,

I actually own an a7RIV and was a Canon shooter before Sony, so I have plenty of experience with adapted Canon (and third-party glass) on Sony cameras. I will say that they have gotten much better with more current, popular adapters. But even the EOS R with third-party lenses had much more reliable AF performance with EF lenses than any of my Sony cameras ever did.

Interesting there is no mention whatsoever of overheating. Even in the Panasonic S1H vs Canon R5 comparison.

Also,
"I never would have thought that you could ever compare a full-size DSLR like the EOS-1D X Mark III to a mirrorless camera."
Where have you been? Sony a9? Sony a9II? Hello?

I sense some extreme bias here considering it is based on "limited hands on experience or based on specs". Even battery life has been ignored. But someone gotta sell those cameras!

Overheating was not an issue we encountered, though you will likely run into the recording limits first, which is clearly called out in the comparison. The S1H was even declared the better camera for video easily.

As for the a9, I addressed this comment below. Battery life I addressed in another comment as well, but this is left out because it is extremely difficult to judge as even CIPA ratings are not very representative of real-world results.

This article was to help present basic comparisons between the models before a full hands-on review can be completed. We are going to take seriously the thoughts and opinions from these comments to help guide major points of any future reviews.

How much less could I pay for an R5 without all the video stuff?  Respect for artists who work in that medium?  Of course!  But that's not me...  I'd love the R5, with basic video features only, for $1000(?) less - I'd spend the balance on another macro lens.  And is there a 5D MkV coming down the track?

Hi Gerry,

Unfortunately, Canon hasn't shared any plans with us regarding the release of a Canon 5D Mark V. However if they do make an announcement, we will follow suit via our e-mail newsletter. 

A believe in the R6 chart, it says fixed lcd when it’s the same as R5’s? 

Ah. Good catch. The R6 is an articulating screen, like the R5, but it is a little smaller.

Would've been a deal breaker for me, been waiting a long time for reticulating screens on Canon Pro cameras 

Seems like one important practical factor should be included: battery life? 

Justin H. wrote:

Seems like one important practical factor should be included in the comparisons: battery life? 

It’s very hard to accurately compare battery life on cameras based on specs. The CIPA ratings are very particular in how they are tested and in my experience are far off the real-world numbers. We will do more in-depth testing when production models are available.

" I never would have thought that you could ever compare a full-size DSLR like the EOS-1D X Mark III to a mirrorless camera. At least, not this soon. "

The Sony α9 has been on the market since 2017. Where have you been?

I was actually right there when the a9 came out and put it to the test. Back then, it was close to what current flagship DSLRs were doing, but I found it fell short in a few key aspects (the compression artifacts) and it lacked a lot of the pro connectivity options of the 1D series and Nikon’s D5 at the time. The a9 II certainly helps there, but the uncompressed raw format (which IMO you need to get full quality like a DSLR) is limited to 12 fps and short bursts of just 131 frames. Not the same. Keep in mind I’m very much a supporter of mirrorless (and am very invested in Sony at one point even owning an a9). I love the stuff but I think that the R5 with the WFT is the closest we have gotten to a true flagship DSLR competitor in mirrorless.

I might be wrong when we actually get a production sample to review, but I stated early on that we only had limited time to make these initial decisions which are really just to help people get an idea of how cameras compare and not a definitive comparison.

In regards to the RF tele extenders: Is it true that they don't work with the RF 70-200mm? If so, that is a huge mistake in my opinion and one I hope they can fix. 

As of now the RF Extenders are not compatible with the RF 70-200mm f/2.8. I suspect this is due to the unique design which allows the lens to become extremely compact. There is no word on if compatibility can be added in the future.

Thanks for the breakdown, very helpful! However, I have to ask why there isn't any comparison to the EOS R? I can't be alone in wanting to know if I should upgrade my EOS R for an R6 or R5. Obviously if money wasn't an issue, it's a clear yes. But is the more affordable R5 worth the upgrade from the EOS R for most people? I'd be most concerned about image quality. 

I think upgrading will definitely be great if you can afford it. The R6 compared to the R is an interesting comparison, as image quality should be better in many ways. The R6 does have a lower resolution 20MP sensor compared to the R’s 30MP. So that is something to this about. But the R6 should bring with it better dynamic range and much better low-light performance. Plus all the autofocus and body design changes.

For an in-depth direct comparison Canon put together something better than we could fit in this article: https://downloads.canon.com/nw/camera/products/eos/product-1/pdfs/EOS-R5-improvements-part-1.pdf

Couldn't agree more on the issues of GPS.  It's on my 5d4, and so I'm very disappointed that Canon didn't see fit to include it on the new R5/R6 cams.  I hadn't planned to upgrade to either of them of them at this time, and this is one more reason why.  Having GPS tagging is really helpful.

It is an interesting decision being made across the industry. There is a lot more movement to rely on connection to a mobile app to do location tagging instead of in camera. Not sure why. One option is to use the GP-E2 module, though that is obviously less than ideal.

Personally I think pulling the gps from the phone is the way to go for the following reasons 1) on my 6d the GPS noticeably shortens the battery life, 2) pulling the time from the connected phone means that the clock is accurate which is important when shooting with 2 cameras at events 3) image.canon begs you to use the hotspot on your phone for internet connection.  Actually operating the camera from the phone is something I rarely use but a connection to the phone has several advantages on the R5 & R6.  BTW I have a Sony A6400 I use for travel photography and the Sony it automatically connects to the phone when I turn it on.

Patrick G. makes good points that I'm sure will resonate with most people (yes, the battery life is shortened!).  I, however, choose to live in the age of the dumb phone for a variety of personal reasons so the in-camera GPS works best for me.  At least there are options available so that each of us can use the option that suits us.  Thanks for chiming in, Patrick!

Is there GPS on either or both cameras?

Unfortunately, neither the R5 or R6 has GPS. You will need Canon's GP-E2 GPS Unit.

Or! I almost forgot. You can use Bluetooth and the Camera Connect app to tag your images with location data.

Thank goodness for my EOS 6D, which  has GPS built in.  The extra cost of the GP-E2 unit puts up the cost of the new cameras, and reduces the convenience.   While the rest of these cameras' specs are really quite excellent, the lack of GPS detracts. 

I never used to think I could give a hoot about GPS tagging on my photos; then I got my 6D MkII and I'm amazed at how useful the GPS tagging has been for me!  I can't see buying a new camera today that requires extra accessories and effort for GPS tagging.  It's hard to imagine that GPS is NOT included in any new camera at this level.

Personally I think pulling the gps from the phone is the way to go for the following reasons 1) on my 6d the GPS noticeably shortens the battery life, 2) pulling the time from the connected phone means that the clock is accurate which is important when shooting with 2 cameras at events 3) image.canon begs you to use the hotspot on your phone for internet connection.  Actually operating the camera from the phone is something I rarely use but a connection to the phone has several advantages on the R5 & R6.  BTW I have a Sony A6400 I use for travel photography and the Sony it automatically connects to the phone when I turn it on.

Patrick G. makes good points that I'm sure will resonate with most people (yes, the battery life is shortened!).  I, however, choose to live in the age of the dumb phone for a variety of personal reasons so the in-camera GPS works best for me.  At least there are options available so that each of us can use the option that suits us.  Thanks for chiming in, Patrick!

Why should “pulling gps from the phone” be the way to go?? If you don’t want to use the built-in gps of the camera, simply turn it off. Now the people who love it have to get it in a much more cumbersome way! This makes no sense in such a high end camera!

Howard L. wrote:

Why should “pulling gps from the phone” be the way to go?? If you don’t want to use the built-in gps of the camera, simply turn it off. Now the people who love it have to get it in a much more cumbersome way! This makes no sense in such a high end camera!

exactly Howard

Is it definite that the GP-E2 will work fully with the R5?  I can’t find a definitive answer, even from Canon!

Close

Close

Close