The Canon EOS R5 has turned a lot of heads for its high-powered features, and while those are great to have, not all genres require such advanced capabilities. So, is it worth paying the premium price for the EOS R5 for a genre like landscape photography? This excellent video review compares the EOS R5 to the 50-megapixel 5DS R, which can be bought for about a third of the price, to help you decide.
Coming to you from Gary Gough, this great video review compares the Canon EOS R5 to the company's high-megapixel champion, the 5DS R. At 50.6 megapixels, the 5DS R actually offers a bit more resolution than the EOS R5's 45 megapixels, but with a significantly older sensor and features. Meanwhile, the EOS R5 offers a much newer sensor, the ability to use RF lenses and adapt EF lenses, and more advanced features, albeit at a significantly higher price. Personally, despite the higher price, I think the EOS R5 is well worth it for a few reasons alone. First, the dynamic range is significantly better on the new body, making shooting landscapes far easier and allowing much more latitude in post. Second, Canon's RF lenses are so spectacularly good that having the option to use them is great (though you don't have to since you can seamlessly adapt EF lenses). Of course, your wants and needs may differ, so check out the video above for Gough's full thoughts.
You can get A7RII at 1298$ with comparable sensor to R5 for landscape and still ability to use EF lenses via adapter. Simple as that.
R5 Is more wildlife, sport camera.
A7RII? come on. at least a A7RIII or IV....
II is not even in same ball park.
It's not in the same ball park, in some details, but for landscapes the R5 won't make much of a difference. It has the same sensor from the A7R III actually.
Besides the EF lenses via adapter, it can use Sony's excellent GM lenses that aren't lesser than RF L lenses. Plus Sigma and Tamron's some of which are quite good.
For the same budget, the A7R II with a better lens will probably do better landscapes than the R5 with a non-L lens.
An excellent review. He states clearly you need not upgrade for landscape photography. Point well taken. Bird photography is different.
I'm still waiting for an R5 without the video options. I'm strictly a portrait and occasional wildlife and landscape photographer and don't need the fancy shmancy video capabilities of the camera. C'mon Canon.