mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

I absolutely agree!

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

I do a lot of jpeg shooting for a school picture company and try to keep post processing to a minimum. The R5 automatically adjusts resolution when switching to 1.6 crop. For instance, I’ll set camera for medium/small jpeg giving me a file size of 2.5-3 megs. After switching to crop mode the resolution switches to large/small so the file size remains the same. Also the crop factor automatically enlarges in the viewfinder so precise cropping is easier to achieve.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

They don't weight that much less especially after you put a long lens for birding on it.

Mmart0418 Loc: Orting, Washington

When you say the 24-105 STM lens, are you talk EF or RF lens? Thank you 😊

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

That’s a pretty specific and unusual use case. Using crop mode for “reach” is what you usually hear.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

My R5 with the battery grip (which I would recommend) is no lighter. The only significant weight savings (and much more compact) is the rf70-200 f2.8 vs my old 70-200 II, f2.8.

rcarol

If you're looking at lightening your load, switching to an R5 or R6 is not likely to meet your objective. While both cameras are lighter than your 5D MK IV, the RF lenses are bigger and heavier than their EF counterparts. To really lighten your load you will need to look at the APS-C or Micro Four Thirds systems.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'm going to be brutally honest.

If you list the gear you'll need to be effective for bird photography, versus a 5DIV you will save just a little size and not much weight with either an R5 or an R6. The problem is the lenses, which with few exceptions are nearly as large and heavy as a DSLR with it's lenses.

For example, your 5DIV body weighs 800 grams, while the R5 body weighs a little less at 738 grams. That's a little over 2 oz. of weight saved.

Now look at a popular lens like the EF 100-400mm II, which weighs 1640 grams. Compare to the RF 100-500mm that weighs 1365 grams. That's just shy of 10 ounces of weight saved.

So at a cost of $3900 for the R5 and another $2700 for the RF 100-500mm... you DO get 100mm more reach and you DO save about 3/4 lb. (Note: Some RF lenses are actually larger and heavier than their EF counterparts.)

A typical selling price for a used 5DIV in decent shape is about $2100, while used EF 100-400mm II lenses in good condition are bringing around $2000. Assuming you get high value for your current gear (selling it directly, you would get considerably less if you trade in or sell to a retailer), you will be spending approx. $2500 to save 12 oz.... or roughly $200 per oz.

Only you can say if that savings is really worth it to you.

Yes, there ARE other interesting and innovative lenses for the R-system, such as the extremely affordable, compact, reasonable weight and quite capable RF 800mm f/11. It sells for $900 and is actually 95 grams (3.3 oz.) lighter than the RF 100-500mm. However, it's also a fixed f/11 aperture and made from a lot of plastic, with little to no weather or dust sealing.

Another consideration... You probably get more, but using standardized CIPA testing the Canon 5DIV is rated to get 900 shots with one fully charged battery. Using the same test procedure, the R5 is rated to get 220 shots (using its electronic viewfinder, you can get roughly 50% more shots by turning it off and only using Live View, but that doesn't work very well for birding). Depending upon how many shots you typically take during an outing, you may need one or two or three or four extra batteries, that you don't need now. At close to $80 each for the LP-E6NH the R5 uses, if you need three or four extra batteries, better increase your budget for the camera significantly. Note: The R5 can use any LP-E6 or LP-E6N batteries you might already have for use in your 5DIV... however, the R5 will have some limited functionality with those batteries (frame rate? AF performance?). it requires the new "H" designated versions of the battery for full performance. Even with those, once the battery has lost about half it's charge the camera will start to slow down slightly. There is a battery grip available for the R5 and R6... the BG-R10 doubles battery capacity, as well as providing useful vertical grip and controls. However, it ain't free (figure $350 for the grip, plus some more $$$ for add'l batteries)... AND, adding a grip sort of defeats the weight savings purpose of this whole exercise.

I also gotta say the R5 and R6 autofocus system seems truly amazing... some say the best in any mirrorless to date. Maybe even "life changing", as I'm sure Chg_Canon will respond here and tell us soon. Personally I shoot a lot of sports, some wildlife & birds and would love to get my hands on an R5. The in-body image stabilization that works in conjunction with lens IS will be appreciated, too! An R5 and several lenses for use on it are right at the top of my wish list (as soon as I win the lottery).

But, hey, another approach you might want to consider, depending upon what lenses you already have and use. For birding, get yourself one of the Canon APS-C DSLRs. It may be lighter AND it will act like a "free" 1.6X teleconverter on your telephotos... which can be very handy with birds AND can allow you to use smaller, lighter lenses than you do now with your full frame camera.

You might consider:
- 7D Mark II... $1400 body only, 20MP, 10 frames per second, great 65-point AF system for action, plus build quality and control layout similar to 5DIV, but at 910 grams it actually weighs a little more than your camera. The weight savings in this case would be in the lenses, since you can use a 200mm instead of 300mm or 300mm instead of 500mm (for example).
- 90D... $1200 body only, 32.5MP, 10+ fps, very good 45-point AF system for action, good build and some control layout shared with 5DIV, plus almost 100 grams lighter than your 5DIV.
- Rebel T8i (also known as EOS 850D)... $749 body only, 24MP, 7 fps, same AF system as 90D, moderate build (penta-mirror instead of pentaprism, lower spec shutter), less similar controls, at 515 grams it's 285 grams (10 oz.) lighter than your camera.
Or, if you want seriously lightweight:
- Canon Rebel SL3 (aka EOS 250D)... $600 body only, 24MP, 5 fps, simple 9-point AF system, very light build (penta-mirror, lower spec shutter), controls emphasize automation, at 449 grams it's one of the lightest DSLRs anyone has ever made, is even competitive with many APS-C mirrorless cameras, and is over 12 oz. lighter than your 5DIV.

Although most of the above cameras shave off a little weight, you'll most likely see more significant weight savings by being able to shoot with smaller telephotos. I refer to these APS-C cameras as, in a sense, providing you with a free 1.6X teleconverter... By "free" I mean that there's no teleconverter to buy, no length or weight added to the lens, and no loss of a stop of light the way there is with an actual 1.4X teleconverter (would be more like 1.5 stops lost with a 1.6X, if there were such a thing). There also are no added optics that might mess with image quality (although certain TCs and lenses work together really well).

At some point in the future Canon is likely to offer an R-series camera using an APS-C sensor and for birding (and some other things), that will be ideal. Particularly if it incorporates an AF system similar to the R5, R6 or the rumored to be coming soon R3. But for now all Canon R-series are full frame models, which don't offer a whole lot of weight savings. There is only rumor of a future crop sensor R-series camera. Canon says they will be offering some affordable models sometime after the R3 has launched (which may happen soon, since there are reportedly advance copies of it now in use by some pros, for "beta testing" and evaluation). But nobody knows if by "affordable", Canon means APS-C. It's logical, but they also might just update the full frame RP or intro a new full frame model below it. There's little doubt Canon will eventually make an APS-C R-series... The question is "when". Could be late this year or sometime next year or the year after that!

This wouldn't be the answer to all your needs. You might keep the 5DIV for some things, such as low light, stage photography, landscapes, and more. But an APS-C can complement your full frame camera and leverage your current lenses for new purposes.

Finally, you might ask why not just crop the images from your 5DIV down to APS-C size, to enjoy the same lens size and weight savings? It's really pretty simple... If you crop a 30MP full frame camera's images down to APS-C size, you'll end up with right around 12MP... far less "pixels on target" than you can get with ANY of the above APS-C DSLRs.

BarbB

I am facing the same decision between R5 and R6. I am leaning towards the R6, for the main reason that I think my computer and LR will be painfully slow downloading and working with ( not to mention storing) the size of the R5 images.. I shoot RAW, and can take thousands and thousands of images when on a vacation. I went to 2 webinars with 2 different “ canon explorer of light”, and both said the 6 preforms equal to the R5, and if you really need to crop tightly, you can upsize the 20mp image from theR6 in LR or PS , and then you are at the 40 MP size before cropping. they also pointed out the the R6 sensor is same as 1dxIII.. and that’s been the top of the line. I like the fact that i could use SD cards, and low light exposure is better. I don’t do movies, so 8k doesn’t tempt me.. I love my 5DM4, but I’ve been assured that the R6 will feel like an upgrade.. let us know which you decide on, and what determined you decision! Good luck

tgreenhaw

My experience is the same as much of the advice here. I use a 5Ds and 100-400 II lens for birding, insects and flowers (its like a stand off macro). But its HEAVY kit. The lens is the big issue for weight, so if that's your only reason to trade up, you might be disappointed.

I also have an RP with the 24-240mm and its become my favorite walkabout combo as it is incredibly versatile, takes great 4K video and is LIGHT. But I wouldn't use it for birding as the 26MP and 240mm just doesn't give the reach you need for serious wildlife photography. Additionally it doesn't have the close focus near macro magic that the 100-400mm possesses.

I hope to eventually replace the 5Ds and 100-400 with the R5 and 100-500. The reason is that when I travel I need to bring both cameras for the versatility I need. The R5 does it all and the bulk of what I schlep around will be significantly reduced.

What the R5 should give you for birding is state of the art auto focus, substantially higher resolution, excellent video capabilities in addition to a bit less weight and bulk. For these reasons, if money isn't a consideration, I think you'll be very happy.

MtManMD Loc: Beaverton, Oregon

Also keep in mind that the "heavily rumored" R7 crop sensor model is supposed to be released in the August-September timeframe, with a rumored cost around $2000. Expected to be mostly identical to the R6 body and should have all the new autofocus features.

Mr.Ft Loc: Central New Jersey

Great post as I'm sure a lot of us are in the same situation !!! I mounted a Wimberly sidekick gimble head to my tri-pod. It didn't add much weight but took all the weight of my 5D M4 with 1.4 x or 2 x converter, and my 100-400L 11 lens. This only works if your able to back-up to where you want to shoot as I can most of the time. I like to shoot birds at the shore.

Bbarn Loc: Ohio

I have an RP. Its a nice little camera, smaller than the R5 & R6, but not that much lighter than most other MILCs or DSLRs.

As stated earlier, one needs to look at APS-C or 4/3 models for a significant weight reduction. And even then, lens choice will be a major weight factor.

I'm not sure any of the available light weight options would serve as a good birding system.

Rick Garside

I have been considering an R6, but was intrigued by the many hoggers who have gone with the RP for weight and price considerations. I'm wondering - of those who have used both, what seems to me to be the prime deciding factors is that the R6 has image stabilization, better low light capabilities and bird eye following, which the RP does not. Do you find that it is easier to get more 'keepers', i.e., fewer blurred shots with your R6 vs the RP6? And - would you say that it is worth the $1500 difference?
Rick G

one_eyed_pete Loc: Colonie NY

Jane, if reducing weight is really important you at least should look at MFT options. I have a Canon 80D and recently a Panny G9 (20 MP). You can save some weight with the Canon mirrorless bodies but the real weight is in the lenses. I love my Canon 100-400L but it weighs abt 47 oz versus the equivalent MFT Panny Leica 50-200 lens at half the weight (23 oz). For birding, the very sharp Panny Leica 100-400 (equivalent 200-800) is only 35 oz. Just an option to look at.