I'm getting serious about purchasing an R5. I do technology product photography - so want the best sharpness/resolution. I currently use a 24-105L on my 5D3 - and I think the results are "OK." I use my 70-200 2.8L for portrait work, and will keep using that with an adapter for a while. My 5D3 will become my backup camera. (I don't currently have a backup camera.)

I'm looking for a comparison of the RF 24-70 F2.8L and the RF 24-105 F4L. I don't see anything on DXO-Mark. I don't care that much about 2.8 vs. 4.0 - It's the "sharpness" I'm looking for. (I know the EF 24-70 F2.8L is supposed to be sharper than the EF 24-105 F4L, and wondered if that was the case for the RF series.)

I'm also looking for feedback from anyone who's currently using the R5 for photos. I don't shoot videos - as I know people who are much better at it than I would ever be. And they don't want to shoot stills.

Thanks for the help.

I didn't say that. Lots of people have made lots of money with that stock. But I don't own an iPhone, and Amazon is not the first place I look if I need something. Google is so pervasive that it is a little bit harder to avoid them completely.

But as a consumer who likes choices, none of them are at the top of my list. Google demonstrates every day that they do not my best interest at heart. Amazon makes it look like they do, but it's been a long time since they have made a decision based on what is in my best interest. (If I should benefit, that's OK with them, but it certainly does not drive their decisions.) Apple is a little bit tougher to talk about, but I guarantee that they are much more interested in the well-being of the institution (themselves) than in mine. There are multiple evidences of this including product pricing, wholesale changes in direction (Apple Music vs. iTunes), and other decisions that t hey have made.

It requires a huge amount of energy and compromise to be the market leader. It is generally not sustainable.

Think about the televisions that RCA made while they were the market leader. Were they the television that you bought if you were a TV enthusiast? Absolutely not. There were others that were far better. As for the oft-lamented Kodak, how long has it been, if ever, since you would have been interested in any camera that Kodak built.

Companies that worry about where they rank historically do a much better job serving their stockholders than their customers, because they rarely expend the energy to learn how to serve both.

This is true in almost every industry. I would much rather buy something important from a competent niche company than from one who specializes in racking up numbers and raking in money.