Just bought an R5II and can't figure out if I should sell my R5 or keep it. The R5 only has 13,400 Sutter actuations on it. I doubt I'm the ony one who's waffled about this.
If you ever shoot either locations or events where you are constantly changing lenses, or where to have the camera body fail would represent a catastrophic loss, I would keep both. But if your shooting is casual and planned out ahead or predictable, I would sell the body and buy another lens. Right now I have only the R5II, but am considering either an R7 or the new R7 if and when it is announced, as I am starting to shoot more, especially birds, aviation, and events, and would like to have both backup and extra reach capability along with the ability to switch quickly between wide angle an zoom.
rprouty wrote:
Just bought an R5II and can't figure out if I should sell my R5 or keep it. The R5 only has 13,400 Sutter actuations on it. I doubt I'm the ony one who's waffled about this.
If only they would have kept the same button/switch layout of the R5, then I would have run an R5 and R5II. But with two bodies, I either need (2) R5's or (2) R5II's with matching layouts.
That's a fascinating take on it.
I've been shooting two bodies for decades, and they've never been the same camera, and it's not been a hindrance in the least. The most difficult was the 1D2 and 1D3, because that's when the entire 1 series interface changed (vastly for the better)
For me the R5 and R52 are the near identical, I don't even notice the difference.
CyberDyne wrote:
That's a fascinating take on it.
I've been shooting two bodies for decades, and they've never been the same camera, and it's not been a hindrance in the least. The most difficult was the 1D2 and 1D3, because that's when the entire 1 series interface changed (vastly for the better)
For me the R5 and R52 are the near identical, I don't even notice the difference.
I think we all shot two different bodies for decades because we didn’t have the all-in-one bodies we have now. And then add in hybrid shooting on top of that and when you are gun slinging two bodies at once during the action and switching between stills and video it makes a big difference to have two identical bodies with the same controls. If you shot hybrid you would understand this difference between the R5 and R5II. Canon went backwards with the R5II design.
CyberDyne wrote:
That's a fascinating take on it.
I've been shooting two bodies for decades, and they've never been the same camera, and it's not been a hindrance in the least. The most difficult was the 1D2 and 1D3, because that's when the entire 1 series interface changed (vastly for the better)
For me the R5 and R52 are the near identical, I don't even notice the difference.
The 1Ds II and 1Ds III were indeed different also. Once I had 2x 1Ds III and 1x 1Ds II and the shutter started the bouncing on one 1Ds III and I had to bring out the 1Ds II as backup. The III had the AF position toggle, which was huge, and also the Li-ion battery.
The R5 and R5 II are not as different, but just enough to slow you down in the field.
I actually find it easier to use two significantly different cameras like a Sony and a Canon together since it's like I have separate muscle memory banks in the head.
artsupreme wrote:
I think we all shot two different bodies for decades because we didn’t have the all-in-one bodies we have now. And then add in hybrid shooting on top of that and when you are gun slinging two bodies at once during the action and switching between stills and video it makes a big difference to have two identical bodies with the same controls. If you shot hybrid you would understand this difference between the R5 and R5II. Canon went backwards with the R5II design.
Ah, I don't shoot hybrid, as you surmise, so indeed my point of view is different. Makes sense.
