Considering moving into the full frame format after about a year shooting with the Canon R7. I bought the R7 used about a year ago to take on safari and it worked brilliantly when paired with a rented RF 100-500 where the extra reach of the crop sensor was more than sufficient to capture all but the most distant subjects. However, as my interest and appreciation for good photography is growing, I am thinking that the full frame format would offer me more latitude to enhance my photography skills. Anyways, I'm faced with a choice here and I would welcome advice from the community. The two choices I am looking at are a used Canon R5 (original model/manufacture date unknown) with a shutter count of about 75,000 from a well known and positively reviewed on line dealer. For a few hundred dollars more I could get a new Canon R6 Mark III. The types of photography I am interested in include travel, wildlife, landscape, portraits, family shots, and street photography. I really don't do nor probably will do much video. The lenses I am considering with either camera include an RF 24-105 f4 and an RF 100-400 for wildlife. I would LOVE to get the RF 100-500L but it is outside of my budget at the moment with this purchase. The 100-400 though a more budget lens seems to be fairly highly regarded and would allow me to continue to dabble in wildlife photography--I could always rent the more expensive L lens for any specific trip I might take. Here's some specific questions I have: 1. Is the 32.5 megapixels on the R6 III enough to allow for "heavy" cropping? One of the things I will be giving up if I trade in the R7 is the extra "reach" that the APSC sensor provided. In the past, I had the opportunity to use the original R6 with 20 mp and while it worked brilliantly for subjects within a certain range, I was disappointed with results when it was desirable to crop in closer. I know the R5's 45 mp should be able to handle heavier cropping pretty easily, but how big a difference is there between 32 to 45 mp when it comes to cropping? 2. New vs Used. As mentioned, the R5 I am looking at reportedly has about 75,000 actuations. I don't believe this is excessive as the R5 is rated for about 500K. Yet, there is a certain peace of mind that comes with buying a new piece of gear. However, I do want to be able to get the best that I can within the constraints of my budget. Would a used R5 be considered overwhelmingly better than a new R6 Mark III? 3. Are there any specific issues with a used R5 that I should be wary of? I know there were some overheating issues, but these were related to shooting video--something I am not going to be doing a lot. I did however come across a number of mentions of the camera freezing up, losing auto focus, etc. Is this common? Any other issues I might want to consider. Thanks for any advice you can offer me!
I think the r5 m1 is more than a feew hundred cheaper from what I saw googling around a bit. But lets cover some of the thoughts /concerns you have. Full discretion, I have not moved to mirror-less so hands on either of these is not a perspective I can provide. Lenses - both cameras are full frame so they really don't sway the lens argument one way or the other. Body - Keep in mind both R5 and R6 line of cameras have very similar semi pro feature sets and won't have a noticeable difference in your variety of needs argument. The main difference in the lines to me is the resolution and the r6 line being ever so slightly smaller and lighter if that is something that interests you. Age- There is a 5 year difference between the two bodies and over 30 years of DSLRs, a 5 year gap would normally be a noticeable performance difference as tech changed quickly, i imagine 5 years is enough to still see a difference here but not a drastic one as imaging has got so great the last decade that you really have to pixel peep. Sensor Size, - They are both the same size full frame sensor, so the R6 with its lower resolution, will have larger pixels and be more sensitive to light, if your shooting higher ISO this will perform better than the r5, also the difference in age will probably have better ISO performance. This is one major reason to consider the lower Megapixel option if it interests you. This is actually the same basic argument to go full frame over crop sensor. as you go to a larger sensor you get bigger pixels if the megapixel stays the same. (crop doesn't get you closer it just crops the usable part of the lens, indemnification is the same) Megapixels - so regarding cropping you want a real world example of how this adds up. I use 300dpi as the fine art printing standard. This will allow you to print using a 32MP image not cropped up to 15x23 inches without upscalling. 45MP will give you 18 by 27 at 300dpi. So you don't get that many more inches. Visual below showing how much cropping you get based on MP. Both sizes can be cropped pretty heavy and have 16/20 prints at 300dpi, plus upscalling is really good these days. The answer is the 45 allows noticeable more cropping but honestly its not a big deal unless your printing poster size or larger regularly. Summary, I think personally if the price is very close i would go with the newer tech/brand new camera, because aside from resolution its very close and no reason to buy a 6 year old used camera. That said if your printing large it is nice to have more resolution coming from someone who printed large from my 8mp 20D and my 20Mp 5d2, that was a major upgrade back then when the upscalling algorithms were not as great. if the R5 is close to half the price that becomes a much more interesting argument and then you can keep your R7, two bodies that work well together are well worth considering as will.
