After nearly a year of putting the Canon R5 Mark II through its paces, I'm ready to answer the question everyone's been asking: should you upgrade from the original R5? The answer might surprise you.
As someone who relied on the original R5 as my workhorse camera for years, I had high expectations. But whether this upgrade makes sense for you depends entirely on what you shoot. Let me break down everything I've learned.
The Photo Quality Debate: Has Anything Really Changed?
Let's start with the elephant in the room—image quality. If you loved the original R5's photos, you'll feel right at home with the Mark II. Canon's signature warm tones are still here, delivering vibrant, punchy colors and flattering skin tones that look true to life with just enough warmth to give images that subtle lift we all love.
But here's the thing: I still find colors can be oversaturated for my taste, especially in the standard profile. Oranges and reds often get pushed a bit too far, and I'm frequently pulling them back in post-production. Coming from the R6 Mark II, which has my favorite color rendering on the RF mount with its more neutral approach, I was hoping the R5 Mark II would follow suit. Unfortunately, the color science hasn't changed much from the original.
That said, I've noticed skin tones lean slightly less magenta and a touch more toward yellow compared to the original R5—a change I actually prefer. But when you see side-by-side portraits, the differences are subtle at best.
The 45-Megapixel Advantage: When Does It Matter?
In the studio with controlled lighting, the R5 Mark II truly shines. That 45-megapixel sensor pulls incredible detail in the eyes and skin that's simply stunning. I recently compared it head-to-head with the R6 Mark II using the same 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, and while the R6 Mark II gets surprisingly close, the R5 Mark II edges ahead in pure resolution.
Here's the reality check: clients will never notice these subtle differences. But I appreciate knowing I'm capturing maximum detail possible. Models and clients consistently look at the back of the camera and say something like, "Wow, your camera is amazing." That reaction never gets old.
For landscapes, those 45 megapixels provide incredible cropability and excel in demanding, detail-heavy scenes. I've also noticed shots seem slightly sharper than the original R5—probably due to deeper blacks that enhance perceived sharpness.
Dynamic Range: The Paper vs. Reality Gap
On paper, the Mark II's stacked sensor sacrifices some dynamic range for speed. Normally, that's a trade-off I'd never accept. But in real-world shooting? I honestly can't see the loss. I'm sure it exists in laboratory test scenarios, but it hasn't revealed itself in any situation I've encountered.
This camera has way more dynamic range than I'll ever need for my shooting style. Underexposing works beautifully, and even aggressive shadow recovery comes with minimal penalty—just like the original R5.
Features I Didn't Know I Needed
Two features completely changed my mind after initially dismissing them:
Eye-Controlled AF: I assumed this was only for sports and wildlife photographers. Wrong. For travel photography, it's transformed how I work with the EVF. Setting focus points with eye control is faster than using the joystick or even touch-and-drag. It's perfect for landscapes or cityscapes where there's no obvious subject—just look where you want focus, and you're done.
Pre-Continuous Shooting: Another feature I thought was sports-only. But for travel? It's incredible for capturing specific moments of motion, like a bird flying through your frame. I use it constantly now.
Electronic Shutter Improvements
The original R5 forced you to drop to 12-bit files at the highest speeds. The Mark II shoots up to 40 frames per second while maintaining full 14-bit files. The real-world difference between 12-bit and 14-bit isn't massive, but it's reassuring to know you're not compromising anymore. Plus, rolling shutter performance is significantly better thanks to the stacked sensor.
Reliability: A Game-Changer for Professional Work
This might be the most underrated improvement. I haven't experienced a single error with the R5 Mark II. With the original R5, I'd occasionally encounter freezes during long shooting days—especially at weddings when firing off continuous bursts. I'd have to pull the battery to reset the camera, which happened frustratingly often.
That issue has completely vanished with the Mark II. For professional work where reliability is non-negotiable, this alone is significant.
Autofocus: Raising the Bar Again
When I first got the original R5 coming from Lumix, I thought autofocus couldn't get better. Then the R6 Mark II proved me wrong. Now the R5 Mark II has done it again.
In photo mode, it's simply flawless—lightning fast, incredibly accurate, and unbelievably reliable. At this point, I genuinely don't know how autofocus can improve further, but I'm sure Canon will surprise us again.
The Downsides You Need to Know
Low Light Photo Performance
At higher ISOs beyond 6,400, there's a noticeable step back from the original R5. It's still absolutely usable, but the original handles high ISO situations slightly better. The R6 Mark II remains noticeably stronger in low light for photos.
The Annoying Playback Bug
Sometimes when shooting with flash or in general shooting, pressing playback shows the second-to-last image instead of the latest shot. It's bizarre, breaks workflow, and makes no sense. Canon needs to fix this.
Video: Where This Camera Truly Excels
Video was my main reason for upgrading, and the R5 Mark II has absolutely delivered. Before this, I was using the Canon C70. The R5 Mark II gets close enough in dynamic range, color, and image quality while offering full-frame that I actually sold my C70.
C-Log 2: Finally, Cinema-Grade Color
With C-Log 2, this is the best image I've seen from any Canon mirrorless hybrid. Both color and dynamic range are exceptional. It's also dramatically easier to expose than the original R5, which was finicky. Now you can expose fairly neutrally and still have tons of flexibility in post to push and pull the image.
Despite coming from a 45-megapixel sensor, footage doesn't look overly sharp—it maintains a nice organic feel.
8K RAW: A Massive Leap Forward
The 8K RAW is cleaner and far more usable than the original R5. It's no longer plagued by noise, and the detail captured is simply unbelievable. The variety of codec options is fantastic—whether you need manageable file sizes for large projects or want massive RAW files for maximum quality.
The Exception: 4K 60fps is line-skipped, resulting in softer, muddier footage. It's usable with sharpening, but side-by-side with the R6 Mark II, it's noticeably inferior. Interestingly, it's actually close to what I get from my Canon C80, suggesting the R6 Mark II just has exceptionally good 4K 60fps.
4K 120fps is also on the softer, noisier side. Slow motion wasn't a strength of the original R5, and there's minimal improvement here.
Cinema Camera in a Hybrid Body
I've used the R5 Mark II side-by-side with my Canon C80 cinema camera repeatedly, and they look remarkably similar. I'd still give the edge in color to the C80—it's slightly nicer to my eye—but in every mode, the R5 Mark II keeps pace, even in dynamic range. That's seriously impressive for a hybrid.
The highlight rolloff is much nicer than the original R5, and shadows recover effortlessly. I haven't found a scene this camera can't handle. Gone are the days when Canon felt a step behind the competition in dynamic range.
Low Light Video Performance
While the R5 Mark II takes a step back for photo at high ISOs, video performance is solid. I regularly push beyond ISO 6,400 in video and find results more than usable. Compared to my C80 (a low-light beast), the R5 Mark II is a step down but gets surprisingly close—even without the C80's triple base ISO advantage.
Pre-Capture for Video
Recording up to 5 seconds of footage before hitting record is unbelievably useful for action, sports, or any movement. You never miss those fleeting moments—simple but game-changing.
Autofocus in Video: Unbelievable
It locks onto and tracks eyes of any subject—human or animal—with rock-solid reliability. It feels like a clear step up even over the already excellent R6 Mark II. I never worry about it or need to correct it. The camera nails focus every time.
The Persistent Problems
Overheating: Still Not Solved
For short clips, even several minutes long, I never have issues—even shooting in direct Roman sun during hot weather. But for longer-form content? Problems remain. I can't reliably use it as an A-camera for talking heads. Sometimes it records for two hours; other times it overheats in 30 minutes.
After Canon's firmware updates, the original R5 was actually more dependable for long recording sessions. This is disappointing.
Stabilization: The Corner Wobble Curse
Those corner wobbles and weird warping are still here, and they can genuinely ruin shots. When the camera was announced, I saw Peter McKinnon's early review mentioning he hadn't noticed wobble, which raised my hopes. But in my experience, it's definitely still present, especially at 24mm and wider.
This is actually one reason I pre-ordered the new Canon C50. Many were upset it lacks IBIS, but I'm relieved—I'd rather rely on excellent optical IS in lenses than deal with video warping. I wish Canon would let us fully disable IBIS and use only optical stabilization.
Battery Life: Holding Strong
Despite new features, battery life matches the original R5 thanks to the new battery. For a full shooting day, I need two or three batteries. For quick clips while traveling and making videos, one battery easily lasts all day.
Ergonomics: Canon's Signature Comfort
This camera has Canon's amazing ergonomics—super comfortable grip, incredible EVF (the best I've used), and practically perfect button placement. It feels bigger and heavier than the R6 Mark II, which actually helps when handling larger lenses like the 24-105mm f/2.8 and keeps footage steadier.
The camera has been rock-solid even in bad weather. Switching between photo and video is absolutely effortless and fast—exactly what a hybrid should be.
Final Verdict: Should You Upgrade?
Here's my honest assessment after a year:
For Photography: Probably Not Worth It
Unless you're shooting sports or wildlife, there's no meaningful upgrade that justifies the cost purely for photography. Image quality and functionality are incredibly close to the original R5. For sports and wildlife shooters, the faster burst rates, better autofocus, and pre-capture could make it worthwhile.
But for portrait, wedding, and travel photography? No major leap here. And honestly, that just highlights how fantastic the original R5 remains—it's a better value than ever if you're not shooting demanding action.
For Video: Absolutely Worth It
As a hybrid shooter where video is now a huge part of my work, this was a massive upgrade. Finally having C-Log 2 in a hybrid body paired with cinema-level image quality feels like Canon fixed everything I needed from the original R5.
I've used it extensively alongside my Canon C80, and the R5 Mark II genuinely delivers cinema camera-level video. In 2025, this feels like Canon's most no-compromise hybrid body yet.
Who Should Buy the Canon R5 Mark II?
Perfect for:
- Hybrid shooters who need top-tier video and photo
- Sports and wildlife photographers upgrading from the original R5
- Content creators wanting cinema-quality video in a hybrid body
- Professionals needing rock-solid reliability
- Videographers ready to replace a cinema camera
Stick with the original R5 if:
- You primarily shoot photos (portraits, weddings, travel)
- You don't need advanced video features
- You want to save money for better lenses
- You're not shooting sports or wildlife
The original R5 remains one of the best cameras I've ever used and is now more affordable than ever. But if video is a major part of your workflow, the R5 Mark II is the hybrid camera Canon should have released from the beginning—it's just that good.
What are your thoughts on the R5 Mark II? Are you sticking with the original or making the jump? Let's discuss in the comments below.