Basil Loc: New Mexico

I currently have a 5D Mark IV (My tele lenses include a Canon 70-200 f4, 300 f4 Prime and a Sigma 150-600 Zoom).

While I love the 5DIV, I am pretty much certain that I want to move to mirrorless but am torn (agonizing is more accurate) between going for the Canon R6 or spending another $1400+ (plus more $$ for CFe cards and a CFe reader) for the R5.

My biggest concern is having 10MP less with the R6 compared to the 5D4 and whether the additional MP of the R5 is worth the rather hefty additional expense (remember it's not just the additional $1400 for the camera, but also the added expense of using CFe cards compared to SD cards).

I know that more pixels on the R5 means I can crop in more and retain IQ, but in practical real-life situations, how often would that be an issue and how much difference will it really make in practical terms.

Of course if the R6 had just a tad more MP (like even 24),that would make the decision a little easier. But going down to 20Mp from 30MP is a hard pill to swallow, if only psychologically, but at the same time justifying more than $1400 + additional CFe card/ reader costs for the R5 is also psychologically a hard pill.

I do like the fact that the R6 uses the same cards in both slots whereas the R5 uses two different card types (I hate that about my 5D4). Aside from the MP and some increased video capability (which isn't that important to me) it seems the two are very comparable when comparing all other features.

I guess the real question would be how much I can still crop in with the R6 before seeing any noticeable degradation of IQ?

I have read lots of comparisons and watched a ton of "comparison videos" but wanted to hear from hogs here who have moved from the 5DIV to the R6 specifically. I still don't have a good feel for whether giving up those 10MP would make enough of a difference to warrant the additional expense of an R5. Have any hogs moved from the 5D4 to the R6 (I'm specifically not asking about the R5 in this post - I know it would be "better" than the R6) and what has your real world experience been regarding whether 20MP is "enough" in most situations.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I will just say that I have both a 5D4 and a mirrorless Fuji system, and I would never give up the resolution of the 5D4 to get the EVF and perhaps AF advantages of an R6 (plus having to add an adapter to use my EF lenses). I completely understand the advantages of mirrorless, but for the type of shooting I do, the end product of the raw image would actually be worse with the R6 than the 5D4. Now the R5 is a completely different story (but an expensive one). My 5D4 delivers the goods and very rarely produces a misfocused image, so just can’t see 2K$ (after trade in) to move to the latest R5 body, and then there’s the cost of RF lenses, cards and reader… Will my images actually look better? Maybe if I was a BIF shooter, I’d have a different opinion.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I have to ask.
Why do you want to replace the 5D4?
GAS?

If I had a 5D4 I'd keep that sucker until it dissolved!

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I have an R5 and use my old stable of EF lenses, I am not about to try and replace a bunch of high end EF lenses for RF lenses, I am sure that those RF f/1.2 lenses are sexy but they are also very expensive, I have mostly L series and Sigma Art lenses that work just fine on my R body with the adapters, in fact I have a Sigma Ultrawide modified for the Haida rear ND filters, that combined with the EF to RF adapter with the built in polarizer replaces a 150mm filter system that would cost a small fortune.

https://www.adorama.com/hahd4643.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwmJeYBhAwEiwAXlg0ASEvz1_UN3muw1sBjvTZCvLehSZo6GROL2ASpGSVv5Zv_tX-z4TDFhoC0Z8QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&utm_source=adl-gbase-p

Basil Loc: New Mexico

So you have not upgraded to an R6. Thanks.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

So you did not move to an R6. Thanks.

BebuLamar

Yeah and he didn't want to spend the money for the R5. I think he has to go mirrorless.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I have not. I would consider the R5 a substantial upgrade, but going backwards on resolution, not so much. BUT the R6 has many things going for it if you don’t need the resolution including IBIS, weight, frame rate, EVF and more AF points. BTW the DR and low light/high ISO performance of the two is almost identical.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I'd rather have the resolution. The other things you mentioned are of little or no consequence for me.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Who would come forward and publicly say they moved from a 30MP EOS 5DIV to a 20MP EOS R6?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I don't know much about the R6 but I imagine that it is pretty good in low light, the 45MP R5 is better at high ISOs than the 5DIV I imagine the 20MP R6 has had similar advancements to the sensor, 20 MP is plenty for a lot landscape, architecture, people... not so much for wildlife. The $6K R3 is only 24MP.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'd the same thing about anyone moving from a 30MP EOS 5DIV to a 24MP EOS R3 ....

I agree the R6 is a fine camera. But, I will not part with a single pixel. Not one pixel of resolution.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

The R6 and the 5D4 have identical low light/high ISO performance, and the R5 is only marginally better. Here are the numbers (stops). The DR is almost the same as well. Source: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

5D4 10.65
R6 10.66
R5 10.76

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Prior to the R5 I was doing a lot of BIF photography and even though I had a 5DIV my go to camera was the 5DSr because of sharpness and the ability to do significant cropping. When I purchased the R5 it was a huge step up from that 5DSr as far as shooting at high ISOs and the images are every bit as sharp.

Maybe that is why I noticed such an improvement, 5DSr is basically the same vintage as a 5DIII. But I do remember my D6, the first full frame I owned had good low light performance. I thought that the lower pixel count contributed to that performance.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Yep, the resolution of the 5DSr was great, but its high ISO performance was a compromise.