Canon R5 Mk. II - Noisy or Not?

[@kennethcaird3892]

This is the most honest analysis on the subject of noise and the Canon R5 MII I have seen on KZbin. I have not touched my Canon R5 MI since I got my MII. There is no looking back!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks so much for the kind words and taking the time to comment. I agree, for my style of photography the R5II is a beast. I am loving every minute I have it in my hands. I sold my R3 as there really was no reason to keep it now that I have the R5II. Yes, the low light performance is better, but the 45mp of the R5II is just so nice to have. Not necessarily for cropping but for overall detail. When you fill the frame and all those pixels are on your subject the detail is there to behold.

[@jonathanfryer1319]

@kennethcaird3892 So glad to read you like the R5 Mark 2. I have read that the dynamic range is not as good as the Mark 1. I am not technically minded but as you have both cameras, do you see any deterioration in colour etc? Thank you, in advance. Jonathan

[@kennethcaird3892]

@@jonathanfryer1319 Jonathon: I have found that the MII has a better dynamic range than the MI. I believe it has way better color as well. I don't know what these people are talking about. I don't think they know what they are talking about. They need "click bait" I guess. If you have the money I would definitely recommend upgrading!

[@jonathanfryer1319]

​@kennethcaird3892 There is a bird photographer (Duade Paton, I think) who compared the mark 1 and 2 on higher ISO settings, if I remember rightly. It made me think... Thank you for your reply. It was reassuring.

[@danutawentzel]

@@kennethcaird3892👍

[@mikefrith1590]

I continue to be stunned that you don’t have more subscribers. I always come away from your videos feeling my time was well spent. Thank you!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks. I appreciate the positive feedback. As you know, putting videos like this together is a lot of work, so I too would like more subscribers. I am not sure how to increase my subscriber base other than to keep putting out videos with at least some useful information. I stay away for "click bait" type videos and video with a bunch of speculation in them. For example, how many videos on the R5II came out 2 years before the camera itself with nothing but speculation in them. I can't even count that high. If putting out those types of videos is what it takes, then I will never get there. Cheers, Ron

[@mvp_kryptonite]

I agree, and glad these videos are more frequent. I don’t even own full frame nor into birding but i appreciate the knowledge! Be great to see some lens videos too

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

@@mvp_kryptonite I feel a great need to keep my video topics centered on what I know best and that is wildlife photography. Lenses are pretty limited for birds and wildlife from Canon, so not too much to do, but I will think about what I can do. Thanks again.

[@msmith2016]

Ron, I think what people are freaking out about is how the DR and noise compares to the mk i. I think everyone thought that the stacked sensor would be a better performer in light but its obvious that Canon's strategy was to improve the rolling shutter while keeping IQ comparable. Your point is exactly correct - if you don't get the shot, it doesn't matter what the dynamic range is. Its all just a bunch of parrots squawking what they heard on the last video and most of them have never touched a mk ii or a mk i for that matter. That last series of images you put up is amazing and if you've captured all those in the time the mkii has come out then my hat is off to you. I've toiled for years just trying to get one of those shots.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks so much for watching and adding your thoughts to the conversation. I agree, and the IQ is comparable to the Mk. I in my eyes. The more I shoot the R5II the more I love it for its all-round performance. I really appreciate your kind words regarding my images. They are much appreciated. Ron

[@michaelpoole8410]

Many thanks Ron. Bird photography is more of a relaxation for me as I don't really care if I get the shot and I rarely shoot a high ISO, but sport is a different matter. I shot basketball and rugby this weekend and have just done a comparison between the R5II and the R3 and was surprised that the R5II gave me better results in terms of focus (using eye detect and the sports basketball setting). Yes, I had a little more noise and used Lightroom de-noise (for the shadows) on both. I have some reservations about the R5 II dynamic range/high ISO performance, as I did about the R5 but now love it, but you are right the R5 II is a cracking camera and I now have to decide whether to keep the R5 or the R3.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for watching and commenting. The R5II, R5, and R3 are all great bodies. So, yes, it is hard to decide what to keep. It is nice to hear from someone who used the "basketball AF settings." Good to hear that it actually helps in those shooting scenarios. Maybe some day there will be a bird version of this feature. Cheers, Ron

[@CharlesBusa-k8l]

I have owned the original R5 and now the R5 II. After a moth I believe the R5 II images have more clarity, appear slightly sharper and I don't notice any difference in noise. Combined with the other feature improvements I am glad I made the upgrade for both stationary subjects and action.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Awesome, thanks for sharing your insight into the comparison between the two cameras.

[@crxbb9506]

Just the facts - Appreciate your clear, concise sharing of your experience with R5MII

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Glad you found the video helpful and straight forward. I appreciate you watching and taking the time to pass along your thoughts. Ron

[@kennethlui2268]

I totally agree with you. Regardless of what cameras being used, we need to expose correctly. I personally compared R5 and R5II on noise. I had a hard time finding the difference. They are very close. Perhaps R5II maybe a bit more noise at ISO 25600 or higher. But I don't shoot over 6400. R5II is a beast. Highly recommended for action/bird photography. By the way, to me, the R5II image looks a bit more crispy than the orig. R5.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Awesome to hear from you! Thanks for adding your insight as it is very valuable. Ron

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

One thing I am watching is the heat situation with the R5II versus the R5. As you know the R5 can get really hot when shooting stills and heat causes more noise. I saw this with the R5 and the heat also seemed to negatively affect the AF performance. So far with the R5II temps are much better managed (I shoot in very hot an humid conditions here in FL) and I have not seen any issues. Something I have not seem mentioned elsewhere.

[@JGZphotography]

The ISO setting mainly adjusts the camera's amplifier rather than the sensor itself, akin to how an amplifier is needed for the stylus of a magnetic cartridge playing an LP record. An aspect not addressed is that signal-to-noise ratios are significantly higher in high-density sensors, such as Canon's 45MP. Since a 45MP sensor is about 50% smaller than a 24MP sensor, it captures a smaller area of light than the larger 24MP sensor, leading to greater noise in the 45MP sensor. In the future, camera sensors might be developed where each photocell can autonomously adjust its output gain, enhancing the dynamic range to more closely resemble human vision. I shoot the R5 and R5ii in RAW for action sports with average settings of 5000 ISO, f/2.8, and shutter at 1/1000 sec., depending on the venue.

[@VexMediaPhoto]

First 30 seconds sums up my exact thoughts haha. Well done!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Ha! Well, I am glad someone feels the same as I do about all this nitpicking that permeates discussions on these types of topics. Thanks so much for watching. Ron

[@ScottRitchie-bw9ls]

Good on you Ron. I agree it is a beast and I've had a lot of fun with it. The auto focus captures birds flying with ridiculous, speculating shots that I would've never gotten in the past. Granted it misses some too but it's usually because it's so out of focus in the first place, there was no contrast to work with. I do notice a bit of noise on the high end of the iso and low light but as you said the other benefits outweigh this and there are ways in post to deal with it. Also, I really like your idea of a using the proper exposure to minimize noise. people forget about this. One question - Topaz AI still does not do Craw images from the R5 2. I'm getting annoyed. I can do JPEG's in topaz but ultimately I really want the CRaw images. I may switch back to DXO. Do you get can you do them in the US?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Topaz Photo AI and DeNoise AI do not work on Canon R5II cRAW images here in the US either. It has not affected me because I use Topaz apps as the last step in my processing workflow and not on my RAW files. If find I get better results by processing my images to the composition and look that I want and then running them through Topaz. Ron

[@perryelder5045]

Have not been able to shoot as much as I would like, but I agree this a beast for how I shoot, i have told several folks if you don't dhoot action then it is more difficult to justify the upgrade, keep the videos coming, thanks

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks so much for watching and commenting.

[@big-o2412]

It's been a month since I started using the R5 II. I think the high ISO noise when using the electronic shutter of the R5 II is about 1/3 stop worse than the R5, but the autofocus performance and blackout-free viewfinder are great benefits. Also, I don't think there's much difference between the R5 and the R5 II when shooting at high ISO using a normal shutter. Also, if we use the paid DPP software "Neural network Image Processing Tool", we can significantly reduce high ISO noise, so I think collaboration with software is also important.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for watching and adding your insights to the discussion.

[@DavidMaciasPhoto]

Awesome Ron, you nailed it and perfect explanation, love the CB radio explanation, I grew up with it as well and perfect example for those who know what gain is, anyway, thanks again for a great tutorial.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

My pleasure and thanks for the kind words and for watching. Ron

[@christophercarlimages9003]

I wouldn't call it noisy at all. I think the issue is that according to pixel peepers the noise is higher at high ISOs as compared to the original R5. Its probably something that no one needs to be concerned with as far as creating excellent images, The question people are asking, is a camera with worse noise performance than the original worth the extra $1300. If i had stayed with Canon, I think the upgrade is a no brainer for birds, but apparently people are starting to expect a little more in an upgrade and a little less cripple hammer. Should we actually have to worry about "trade offs' in 2024 when spending nearly 5K for cameras? Its probably a more universal question than just this simple example of how a newer camera has worse performance in one area than the 4 year old predecessor

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks for watching and adding your thoughts to the discussion.

[@markrigg6623]

Yes, the correct title should have been is it "noisier" than the R5? Which it is.

[@HuFilms]

Nice one Ron. You're right, upgrading to the MK2 if you're a 'static shooter' is pointless. I have my R5MK2 ready to unbox here and can't wait to try it. Also got the new 200-800 lens which is great for video. Have you tried the R5C for wildlife video? It's pretty cool. 120 fps RAW in 3K crop (s16) gives incredible reach and is very usable footage.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks for the kind words and for watching. Question regarding the R5C. How is the Auto Focus compared to the R3 and R5II? I like to capture birds in flight footage so AF function is critical. Ron

[@rfh1234]

I think shutter speed and protecting highlights are the critical, most important values. If the image isn’t tack sharp, and the highlights are gone, never to return, who cares about ISO or grain. Both Topaz and LR do a fabulous job of cleaning up noise. Wildlife, moving wildlife at least, needs high shutter speeds, which then require high ISO, except when the sun is bright.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

No doubt that higher shutter speeds help a lot when shooting action, especially with high pixel density cameras. Thanks for watching and adding your thoughts. Ron

[@Strongfingers88]

Great vid Ron, learned a lot here. Would love to pick up this camera one day!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey thanks. And thanks for watching.

[@gavindavis1300]

Ron, following your video, I’ve just shot the R5MkII & R5 side by side on an RF70-200 @200mm. f8, 1/800, 12,800 ISO (overcast, dark afternoon). Subject was a fern with light and dark areas. Ran both files through DxO PureRaw 4 and there was absolutely no difference in the files at all at 300%. As you say Ron, get out & shoot!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks so much for watching and taking the time to add your experiences to the discussion. Good to hear you are finding the R5II a worthy successor to the R5. Ron

[@gavindavis1300]

I’m shooting them side-by-side until I sell the MKI & I honestly cannot see that the IQ on the MkII is inferior. In fact, in some circumstances, I prefer it. As Ron says, add in the AF & frame rate improvements and it’s a proverbial no-brainer.

[@VexMediaPhoto]

Are you also liking the Mk II color better though? I’m finding it the same type of color improvement that the R3 was over the R5.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for watching and adding your insight to the discussion. Always good to hear from others about their experiences.

[@gavindavis1300]

@@VexMediaPhoto It’s difficult to put your finger on it. I’ve not really noticed a change in colour science, it’s just that I’m really liking the files. It doesn’t make the MkI a bad camera - it’s still awesome, it’s just that when something appears in the garden, I’m reaching instinctively for the MkII over the MkI (and R3). The only reason I deliberately use the R3 now is where I know I’m shooting in low light.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

@@VexMediaPhoto I like the colors coming from the R5II. I have always liked Canon colors for the most part.

[@rustyspurproductions]

Still shooting with my 5D Mark IV. What's the best replacement for it? I primarily shoot wildlife.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I would say either the R5 or new R5II. The R5 if you don't so much or any action wildlife. The R5II if you need the best AF system that can lock onto and hang with fast subjects like birds in flight. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ron

[@TheNewMexicoMan]

Ron, Could you use the Register/Recall feature to enable continuous capture as needed?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

If you are referring to Pre-Continuous Shooting/Capture, I do not see that feature/function in the list of functions that can be controlled via Register/Recall a Shooting Function. So, no it seems you cannot assign Pre-Continuous Shooting to another button on the camera. Thanks for watching and for commenting. Ron

[@TheNewMexicoMan]

@@whistlingwingsphotography Thank you Ron. I was hoping enabling Pre-Continuous Shooting/Capture could be assigned to a button. I don't have an R5MkII yet but will be renting one this coming summer for a Bald Eagle workshop I am attending. Having Pre-Continuous Shooting/Capture on all the time would fill up a card really fast and make it a long process to go through all those images.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

@@TheNewMexicoMan It is not on all the time when you have it enabled. It is only pre-capturing images when you have the shutter button pressed half way down. So, if you want to shoot an image or burst of images without pre-captured images go directly to full press and avoid half press of the shutter button. I understand this can be a problem if you use half press of the shutter button to initiate AF. If you use back button AF then it works out pretty well. Ron

[@theflyingdutchman7127]

I have never seen noise with my Canon R3, not even at ISO 5000. More pixels are not always better. Maybe fewer pixels are better. and for the trimmers. I can crop effortlessly with my 24 mega pixel Canon R3. I am very curious about what the R1 will show us.❤️🙏

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I have shot the R3 since it was available, and although I cannot say I have never seen noise, I agree the noise is minimal and I have shot it up to ISO 10000 and made some nice images. Cropping is a different matter, and given the clean images, you can get a way with some heavy crops with the R3's 24mp, but there is a limit. Moreover, for me, it is not all about being able to crop more with 45mp than 24mp, but about the detail you get when you put most of those 45mp on a subject. It can be stunning. I expect the R1 will provide the same ISO to noise performance of the R3, but with more AF capabilities and the like. I look forward to working with the R1 and likely will have an R1 and an R5II in my kit moving forward. Thanks for watching and taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion. It is much appreciated. Ron

[@jonathanfryer1319]

Thank you for your opinions. This is the first video of yours i've watched, i think. Very down to earth. I have an R6 mark 2 and my frustration is not being able to print after cropping. I'm looking for a 45 mb sensor. It was going to be the R5 msrk 2 but others tell me Nikon (Z8 or 9) is excellent for bird photography. It took me long enough to choose the R6! It's exhausting! What should i do? Thank you, again.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Welcome to my channel and thank you for the kind words about this video. The R5II is an excellent bird photography camera, especially if you are targeting fast action like birds in flight. I have only had a brief time shooting the Nikon Z8, but it is a very good camera body and the "bird" mode is very capable. In the end, it is very hard to know which camera would suit you best, because only you know what you like. There is no doubt that either camera is more than capable of doing the job you want it to do. If possible it is always best to get your hands on the cameras and test them out before buying one. Loan or borrow if you can. I know this can be difficult to do these days with the limited availability of these cameras, but it can save you a lot of money and frustration in the end. Another consideration is what you already have invested in Canon gear. If you have a lot of Canon lenses and the like then sticking with Canon might be the best way to go to keep the cost down.

[@jonathanfryer1319]

@@whistlingwingsphotography Very wise thoughts. I have three rf lenses. I use the canon 100-500 with the 1.4 extender. I've loved this combination - it is my first DSLR of any type! I will look into trying before buying. I am very grateful for your reply.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

@@jonathanfryer1319 My pleasure.

[@dorianetcetera2264]

Hey there I just bought the r7 is it good I am new to wildlife photography

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

It is a good body for the price point. Whether you will be satisfied with it depends on what you shoot most often. For fast action birds in flight or other fast moving wildlife you might find things like the buffer are not adequate for your needs. Overall, I find it to be a good, good light, body for general wildlife work. Thanks for watching and for taking the time to comment. Ron

[@hilarie4]

Thanks for this video

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

My pleasure, thanks for watching.

[@colintraveller]

Another video i saw mentioned issues with pic quality when using the electronic shutter ...

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I use the ES 95% of the time. I am not seeing any issues with the ES with regards to IQ, but that is just me.

[@stephendouglas4545]

I was hoping you would talk about the noise-reduction software options. I only use LR. I'm wondering if it is worth it to get topaz or the latest and greatest software? How much do they cost? Thank you.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Yes, definitely, Topaz is worth acquiring. Topaz DeNoise and Topaz Photo AI are great assets to have when needed and run as plug ins in LRc and Photoshop. The great thing about these apps is they both denoise and sharpen and they do a great job preserving the detail in your subject. I like DeNoise better than Photo AI, but sometimes one does better than the other depending on image, so I try both to see which does a better job. In Topaz DeNoise there are a few different algorithms to choose from. I love the "Clear" algorithm as it works the best most often. I will consider doing a video on using Topaz. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@rogermilstein3303]

I use Topaz Photo AI and it is a “must have” even with my R5 II, especially above ISO 800.

[@billmartin1010]

In bright sunlight, just about every camera can make amazing photos these days. The R7 does GREAT in bright sunlight! But both the R7 and the R5ii produce way too much noise in the shade. Very discouraging. And running every image through denoise software is not a solution. (I'm thinking of going back to a 24MP camera. After all Canon is THE 24MP camera company!)

[@OhhhhhhhBugger]

Only ISO 4000? The R5 can do pretty good up to ISO 10,000 in some cases.

[@rfh1234]

Agree.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

We all have our own tolerance for noise in our images. The operative words you used are "can do pretty good...in some cases." On the R5 and R5II I like to stay at ISO 4000 or lower as doing so provides the best results most often. I tend to be conservative with what I purport in my videos, and given I do not like the results I see from ISO 10,000 most of the time, I do not want to give people the idea that shooting the R5 or R5II at that high of ISO will produce high IQ. That being stated, I have shot the R5, and now the R5II, at ISO 8000 and if you don't need to crop in or work with the exposure much that setting can work. Thanks for watching and for taking the time to comment. Ron

[@brucefangmann5728]

Why not shoot at higher ISO and getting exposure correct ,then run thru topaz. Would seem to be a much better test of ISO thanks

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Sure, test ISO performance however you like. In the end it all tells the same story. I was trying to make a point, given I have works with many people who have images shot at fairly high ISO and still underexposing. That is a double whammy if you are trying to make good images. I guess that point did not come across. I also tried to make the point that shooting at higher ISOs and getting the correct exposure the R5II produces nice images. Again, I guess that message did not register. Cheers, Ron

[@mobelue]

The mki often has Creamy bokeh and the mii does not. But the mkii gives me more and better and difference shots due to autofocusing. Refocusing. Tracking.

[@bordoluxury]

Quel est votre model de harnais ?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I manufacture and sell the Speed-shooter harness. You can find more information here: www.speed-shooter.com

[@RBusinessSchool]

I get so sick of people talking about "pixel peepers" - especially from people whose only understanding of photography is from looking at tiny images on a computer screen. If you sell large prints, it has the effect of spreading everything out and exposing noise in the image. That isn't pixel peeping. And a lot of the impressive images people see online look like hot garbage above about 11x14 size. If you're shooting pitchers of Fluffy and the kids to post on Instagram, you can get by with just about anything. The same thing that goes for noise can be said about dynamic range. The ability to bring detail up from shadows can be the difference between a print that sells and one that hangs on the wall for a while, until you re-use the frame. And now, frames per second has become the new proxy for what makes a camera good, just like harmonic distortion used to be for hi-fi (back when they used to call it hi-fi). The simple fact is, birds in flight is just about the only nature photography that really benefits from these crazy high frame rates. That's what you do, and you're very good at it. But I wish you would educate some of you viewers about what some of these images look like, with the necessary crop, and printed to say 48 inches wide. And explain that isn't pixel peeping.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

First, I do not consider printing an image large to be pixel peeping. I agree that printing an image large will always be the ultimate test of the true quality of an image. But so is viewing it on a 50 plus inch 4K monitor. I have found that if an image holds up to viewing on a high quality, large, high resolution monitor it will look great printed large. This is how I assess my images and it has worked well for me. With regards to cameras, for me, it is about having the right tool for the job. For my work with birds in flight and other action wildlife photography, cameras like the R5II and R3 with their high frames per second and amazing AF systems are what is good/best for the job. If I were shooting landscapes and I needed the best DR and noise performance there are better camera body options out there and I would not be using an R5II with a 600mm f/4 lens. The great thing is, we have so many choices of what to shoot camera-wise. Heck, we can still shoot film if we want to. Something I did for many years. So I do think a great camera, and lens for that matter, is still in the eye of the beholder. Lastly, with regards to educating viewers about what my images look like printed large. Honestly, I am not sure how to respond. I hope you are not asserting that my images look like garbage when printed larger than 11x14. Whether this is because they are shot on a Canon R5II or because of my skill as a photographer. Make no mistake, the R5II can produce world-class images that can be printed much larger than 11x14 and look amazing. Moreover, I have worked hard for many years to become a competent photographer and almost all of the images I decide to process would, and do, look very nice printed 16x20 or larger. What I hope you are asserting is that many photographers don't have the understanding of what it takes to make truly high quality images that look great when printed large given they only look at their and other's images on a phone via Instagram and the like. I did try broach this subject in this video when I discussed digging the deep hole. I will consider doing a video dedicated to creating truly high quality images as I understand where your frustrations are based as I have many of the same feelings. Thanks so much for watching and taking the time to comment. Ron

[@FDunst-xj8rn]

thx for your meaning, but not all of Photographer are birder or action photographer they need improofing in read out aso. I personly photograph all genre and I personly prefer better DR and IQ than better read out. But that is my meaning and therefore I still keeping with both R5... R5 MKI für Landscape and bad light condition and R5 MKII for sport and if I need better AF or pree capture.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

The right tool for the job.

[@ImperialEagle1]

With the R5 it was simple. I just set AUTO ISO. My experience with the R5 Mk II is that I can’t do that anymore. Auto ISO produces more noise which = soft images ! With the R5 Mark II, I actually have to think and manually set ISO and Shutter speed. It’s not fair !! 😢🫤 ps. Will have to look at reducing ISO upper limit in AUTO settings so I don’t have to think so much.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Well, that is the great thing. The R5 is still an option. Shoot the camera that works best for you. I have used so many different cameras from Canon, Sony, Nikon, etc. and I use the tool that best suits my needs and it is not always the newest version.

[@johnr75]

how about 6400 or 12,800 ? just curious as I have a lot of pics in that range, but I am not shooting raw (just jpg so far) - I don't know how to use the photo processing and I have a slight color vision deficiency, so I am afraid to do anything that would change the colors that would look ok to me, but someone else would say "why is your subject green? "

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

The highest ISO I have shot so far on the R5II with any regularity is 8000, so I cannot comment on 12,800. I just never shoot that high of ISO as I have never been able to create high quality images at that high a setting. I also do not shoot JPGs, so I am not sure about the affect of High ISO Noise Reduction on critical detail in images shot at 12,800. Sorry I could not be of more help.

[@fp3359]

Forget all the cr@p online. DPR is invested with Sony-Nikon trolls. Objectivity is out of the window many years ago.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Well, I try to be objective in my assessments. I stay away from comparing Canon to Sony to Nikon, etc. They all make good cameras that take great images. It is not worth getting into the fanboy wars.

[@fp3359]

@@whistlingwingsphotography Thats the way to do it ! 👍

[@eyesofatiger1]

This is coming from an ex R5 shooter: I got my R5 II 5 days ago. I had two professional shoots for video commercial - the clients were STUNNED by the video quality, this camera blew their mind... It blew my mind too! The image is cleaner than the original R5, the contrast is better, the autofocus is way better, stickier and accurate by FAR(both, for video & photo!), its simply amazing!!! I just received a call for another project from from the same guys and im not even ready with this one! 🤩💸 Listen, guys, you need to change your perspective... The BEST camera is the one that gets the job done, right...? The BEST camera is the one that gets you more clients, right...? IF you are a professional and you are making money by Filmmaking or Photoshoots - you should buy the new R5 II for sure!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks for watching and taking the time to add your experience with the R5II.

[@eyesofatiger1]

@@whistlingwingsphotography your personality and videos are awesome!!! I’m not even shooting wildlife photography and I’m always watching your content! Thank you for your time and effort to educate us! 🙏🏻

[@Kunoswildworld]

You know i am in the greatest dilemma of life which one to buy rf 100-500 or rf 200-800 with R5. I am general natire photographer. Can you please help me.?