If you're considering the Canon EOS R5, R5 Mark II, or R3, you’ve likely wondered which one fits your needs best. Each camera brings distinct advantages, from advanced video capabilities to top-tier autofocus. Here's which is best for you.
Coming to you from Jared Polin of Fro Knows Photo, this detailed video compares the Canon EOS R5, R5 Mark II, and R3. One of the most significant upgrades in the R5 Mark II is the 45-megapixel full-frame stacked sensor, offering faster performance than the R5's traditional sensor. The R3, on the other hand, has a 24.1-megapixel sensor but offers better high ISO performance, making it ideal for low-light situations. The video also highlights how the new stacked sensor in the R5 Mark II impacts dynamic range and overall image quality, particularly in fast-action shots.
Polin points out that the R5 Mark II’s pre-shooting feature is a game-changer for sports and action photography. This function lets you capture images up to half a second before you fully press the shutter, giving you more flexibility to get the perfect shot. This is something the R3 lacks, even though it’s often seen as a superior camera for fast-paced shooting. While the R3 does offer a slightly better rolling shutter performance, the trade-offs make the R5 Mark II a compelling option for many photographers.
The discussion also touches on ISO capabilities. The R3, with its lower megapixel count, handles high ISO better, producing cleaner images in low light. However, Polin explains that in real-world use, the R5 Mark II and R5 still perform well at moderate ISO levels, especially when paired with high-quality lenses. For those who don’t regularly push their cameras to extreme ISO settings, the difference may be negligible. Polin emphasizes that the R5 Mark II’s versatility, from high frame rates to its enhanced autofocus system, makes it a well-rounded choice for most types of photography.
If you’re also considering video capabilities, the R5 Mark II stands out with its impressive video specs, including 8K recording and 4K at 120 frames per second. It’s almost like having a cinema camera in your hands, and Polin stresses that its video features rival those of dedicated video cameras. The R3 also performs well for video but lacks some of the advanced options found in the R5 Mark II. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Polin.
I'll be looking forward to the time (if ever) when the full frame camera manufacturers decide to make a high end stills photocentric camera and not another hybrid. Medium format is out of my price range. I realize the marketing decisions to make hybrids, but if one is truly involved with video, why not acquire a cinema camera? Just my opinion. Lastly, when I made the same comment on Polin's YT site, he commented back to me saying I was clueless. Last time I visited there....
The TrUtH is oUt tHerE….. but to summarize, a stills only camera won’t happen. It’s trivial to put video features into a modern camera, and it’s what the majority of the market wants - ie: you’re in the minority. Even the new Leica Q3 43 fixed-lens richboy toy takes 8K video. There’s always that new M-11 without a back LCD if you really want a “photo centric” experience.
There’s a reason those low-volume medium format cameras are out of your financial reach.
A stills-only camera would target a smaller market, and thus need to carry a higher unit price to make up for that. Manufacturing at scale is what makes things cheaper, not leaving out software features and having one less hardware button on the outside. Creating such a camera would also drain R&D and manufacturing resources and carry a higher risk of running in the red. AKA: dumb business decision.
What Jared meant when he called you clueless is that you’re… well, clueless. You don’t know the things you don’t know, and you one of those things is that catering to your niche desires is mostly unprofitable for the makers of mass market consumer electronics.
Every mirrorless camera with an EVF must be a video camera. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to see anything in the viewfinder. The same improvements that drive better video performance also contribute to better EVFs and higher frame rates and buffer limits shooting still images. Video is also driving the push for electronic shutter with very little rolling shutter effect which requires sensors with faster readout speed
I never thought I would see on Fstoppers comments such as below that a preference for shooting stills and desiring a full frame photocentric camera was "niche". I began taking images over 50 years ago and believe me, there are many out there that feel the same way. Also, the reason the market for medium format cameras are smaller than full frame is not that they just shoot stills (most do video as well), it's their cost of a larger sensor camera and the expensive lenses available. Those that make and use medium format cameras are laughing at you. Enjoy your next cinema camera?