Canon EOS R5 Mark II Field Review - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.



Canon EOS R5 Mark II, ISO 100, F20, 2 Second Exposure

In September of last year, I decided to make the move from my Canon EF lens mount to a mirrorless system. While I had a significant investment in Canon L lenses, I chose to take the loss, sell most of my gear, and start from scratch. The only lens I kept was my beloved 24mm Tilt Shift lens, a gift from my friend Steve Kossack. Beyond the financial commitment—which was substantial—it felt liberating to explore all the incredible camera options available. I seriously considered Nikon, Sony, and Canon's offerings, as well as Fuji's GFX100-II, which piqued my interest due to my focus on landscape photography. Let’s be honest, there aren’t really any bad cameras out there these days—just tools that serve slightly different purposes.

I began my journey with a Black Friday plunge last year, picking up a couple of lenses and an original Canon EOS R5, knowing I'd eventually go all-in when the Mark II was released. The price of the Mark I had dropped below $3,000, and the deals on lenses were good enough to justify the purchase. The Mark II took much longer to be announced than I expected, and I almost bought two more Mark I bodies because the camera was just that good. Finally, in July, Canon announced the successor, and I pre-ordered right away. On August 22nd, I received two Canon EOS R5 Mark II cameras from Adorama, along with two standard grips and six extra LP-E6P batteries. Big thanks to Efraim at Adorama and to my friend and colleague Michael Priest of Michael Priest Photography for their help. For transparency, all this equipment was paid for with my own money—I have no financial ties with Adorama. I’ll include a link to the camera at the end, but I get nothing and ask for nothing in return. By the way, if you’re getting married, call Michael. He’s fantastic. He also shoots babies and could probably be convinced to take a tasteful nude or two. OK, now for the review.




At first glance, the Canon EOS R5 Mark II doesn’t seem very different from the original Mark I. The 45-megapixel sensor, 12 frames per second mechanical shutter remains unchanged. If using an image stabilized lens, they claim that they have banged out another 1/2 stop of total image stabilization out of the system (to 8.5 stops), but that is hardly revolutionary. You can even use the original battery grip and the older LP-E6N batteries, though you won’t get full functionality with the latter. I am also using the same L Bracket on my Mark II as I had on the prior model. Most of the changes are internal. So, the question for those interested in the Canon RF system is: are the new features worth the $1,300 premium over the original R5? That’s a tough call, but I’ll try to provide some clarity.

The Mark II is all about speed. Though both cameras have the same resolution, the new “Stacked CMOS Sensor” allows for burst rates of up to 30 frames per second with the electronic shutter (compared to 20 FPS on the Mark I). The stacked sensor also improves image quality of the Electronic Shutter by reducing the effects of "rolling shutter." Since November, I have photographed at several dog shows with the Mark I’s electronic shutter, thinking the higher frame rate (20 FPS) would capture movement better, but the results were underwhelming. Scratching my head, I did some research and read about the image quality hit that the R5 images struggled with when using the electronic shutter. I quickly switched back to the mechanical shutter and was immediately pleased with the quality of the images. I’d even say I’d never voluntarily use the electronic shutter on the Mark I again. For folks who have ever been to a dog show, it is about as glamorous as it sounds. Usually, you are shooting in flat, harsh fluorescent light in a place that could be a feedlot the next week. n. That said, 12 FPS with the mechanical shutter is still more than enough for most action photography. With the Mark II, I still prefer the mechanical shutter mainly because the electronic shutter bottoms out at 1/2 second exposures. The fact that the mechanical shutter may provide slightly better dynamic range (which has been confirmed by data from Photons To Photos) is a bonus.

Speaking of mechanical vs. electronic shutters, the idea of eliminating the mechanical shutter is appealing—if the image quality holds up. The electronic shutter has several advantages, including blackout-free shooting and the ability to capture up to half a second of still images before pressing the shutter. While I haven’t relied on this feature yet, I can see its appeal for action photography—imagine capturing a bird taking off or a sudden movement from wildlife. Last week, I was photographing wolves in Yellowstone, and the amount of data the camera silently captured was overwhelming. While having more data is generally better, it can be too much when you’re trying to get the perfect shot efficiently. Time is money, and no professional wants to waste hours combing through thousands of images (LOL, unless they are all winners). The same goes for post-processing. It’s better to get the shot right in-camera and save time later in your favorite editing program.


Canon EOS R5 Mark II, ISO 100, Manual Setting, 1 Second Exposure, F20

Side Note: Some of you may wonder why it is I am shooting such long exposures at such narrow apertures. It is a technique that i have developed over the years for using my neutral graduated filters. My goal when using filters is to avoid seeing where the gradient was placed - and this requires a longer exposure than sometimes what is necessary in order to get the full composition to appear sharp within the display. Also, I am frequently shooting relatively close to my foreground, and it requires a bit of legerdemain to make it look like the entirety of the frame is sharp (which of course, it cannot be). I will admit, that I also like the look of a dragged shutter for it's effects on the water and in the clouds, when I have atmospherics. .

One of the most talked-about features of the Mark II is its Eye-Controlled Auto Focus. When it works, it’s an absolute joy. I hate to say “when it works” because it’s quick and accurate in most situations. The key is to look at the subject, lock in, and press the shutter. It’s fantastic for both moving subjects and static landscape scenes. However, there were times when it didn’t perform as expected. In low light, the autofocus seemed to stall faster than the Mark I (though this could be subjective). I also had one instance where the camera couldn’t lock focus, and I had to turn it off and on again to reset it. The photo below was taken in early morning with a ton of atmospherics made for an image that was very difficult to focus on. One thing I have discussed as a work around is to start using the back buttons for Autofocus and to have a few different focus modes at the ready. There’s a great video on the Wild Alaska YouTube channel that covers this, and I’ve linked it below. Also, be sure to calibrate and recalibrate the Eye-Controlled Focus setting—it really improves responsiveness.


Canon EOS R5 Mark II, ISO 1600, Manual Setting, 1/2000th of a Second at F9 (The Eagle Never Dived)


Canon has also made some ergonomic updates to the user interface. While Mark I users will find it familiar, I found it more intuitive and faster to navigate. There was some fuss about moving the “ON” switch from the left side to the right, but after using both cameras side by side, I don’t think it’s a big deal. It also places it in the same location as on the Canon EOS R8, which we also own. However, one annoying default setting is the camera defaulting to the electronic shutter in all situations. For those of us who shoot manually, you might notice the camera maxes out at half a second exposure (I mentioned this above). To shoot longer exposures, you’ll need to dig into the settings: go to the “Red” shooting menu, sixth option, and switch from “1st Curtain Electronic” to “Mechanical” shutter mode.


Canon EOS R5 Mark II, ISO 50, Manual Setting 1/6th of a Second at F22

Another more frustrating issue is the Electronic Viewfinder (EVF). I am still recent to mirrorless and I am getting used to some of the technical limitations of what they call a viewfinder. My experience with the R5 Mark II's viewfinder is that it is - at best - underwhelming when compared to an optical viewfinder. Specifically, on an optical finder, what you see is what is actually there. With the EVF, you are limited to what the sensor is able to capture. When does this become a problem? It particularly becomes a problem when you are shooting images at high ISO and you have seriously limited dynamic range. No matter what the camera, for now, we see relatively large drop offs in dynamic range the higher the ISO you go. Shooting dark wolves on a light background at high ISO (sometimes up to 12,800) really showed the problems of the EVF. I found images taken at these ISOs to be distorted and/or unsharp, especially when zoomed in. There were a bunch of wolf images that I was chimping and I almost tossed them out because I did not think they were sharp enough. What appeared to be chromatic aberrations and other artifacts are also visible. If EVFs are the future of Canon's cameras, they had better get to improving the experience.

In terms of image quality, low ISO shots are beautiful. For all the talk about loss of dynamic range between the R5 Mark I and the Mark II, I did not see it at all for my landscape work. That is not to say that it is not a difference of a half stop between absolute white and absolute black - but using the camera as I do in the field, I did not see it during my work with this camera. Compared to my Canon EOS 5ds R, which I loved for landscape work, I think the R52 far surpasses it for dynamic range and image quality at pretty much every ISO.

Using the R5 II, I took some lovely landscapes at ISO 800 in camera In this situation, I was shooting with my shutter speed a bit higher with the idea that there were some birds in the background that I did not want to be a distraction. However, once I broke ISO 800, there was what I see as a pretty clear difference between the R5 II and the R5 Mark I. The camera really struggled with those high ISO images, particularly with wide dynamic range situations. I mentioned a really nice Youtube Channel earlier (Wild Alaska Video) and the gentleman shows some really lovely images at higher ISOs than the ones I was taking using DXO's software for RAW conversion. All I am going to say is that - to date - this has not been my experience using Capture One. Given that though, honestly, they are not terrible at all and are quite usable. Shooting in the fading light of day, high ISOs and fast shutter speeds are necessary. Even with the improved autofocus on the R5 II, I'd be going for the R51 in these situations. I do plan on downloading DXO Photolab 8 and comparing images in the near future.

I have shared a variety of images taken at different ISOs below (all above ISO 400). I think you will see that up to ISO 1600, the R52 is really sweet. The higher the ISO, the softer and noisier the image gets - but to be fair, you are way ahead of anything I could ever have produced with my Canon EOS 5ds R. When reviewing the 100% crop, please remember what it is you are actually looking at - taking time to look at it in comparison to the larger image as a whole. Without that context, the crop is kind of useless. It is also important to note that these photos are all 'real world use.' I think that under controlled lighting and static images would provide slightly different results. Some of the images had some initial sharpening, but I have done zero noise reduction outside of my defaults in Capture One. The camera really struggled shooting images with high detail and wide dynamic range in low light (for example,a dark dog on a bright backlit space). I leave it to you to decide at what point in the game that the images become (un)usable.



Canon EOS R5 Mark II, ISO 400 1/160th of A Second at F8





Canon EOS R5 Mark II, ISO 800, 20 Second Exposure at F2.8 - Pre Dawn Photo




Canon EOS R5 Mark II, ISO 1600 1/500th of a Second Exposure at F16





Canon EOS R5 Mark II, ISO 3200 1/200th of a Second Exposure at F10 - Grizzly Bear 399, shortly before being run over by a car.





Canon EOS R5 Mark II, ISO 6400 1/800th of a Second Exposure at F9





Canon EOS R5 Mark II, ISO 12,800 1/1000th of a Second at F9




Final Thoughts:
I really want to love the Canon R5 Mark II camera. In many respects, the camera is a real dream to operate. The UI on it is is so smoothly designed, and images taken in low to mid-ISOs are really wonderful. However, there are quirks about it that are frustrating - my biggest being the greater amount of evident noise in high ISO images. Unfortunately, this is a double problem, because it makes image review on the EVF to be moderately frustrating as well because you see the problems long before you get to a desktop where you might be able to do some cleaning up. The Eye Controlled AutoFocus is a blast - when it works...it is a promise 75% fulfilled.

So, back to the original question - is the Mark II worth the extra $1,300? Honestly, I’m still on the fence. At the end of the day, these are billed as photographic (digital) cameras, not video cameras. Print quality should be what we are all looking at. While I think that the image quality of the R5 II at lower ISOs matches the OG R5 (minus the issue that has been noticed about dynamic range, particularly with the electronic shutter), there are a heck of a large number of qualifiers. If I were someone who were looking at this just from just a paint by number approach, I can argue pretty easily that the new R5 II does nothing photographically as well as the original Mark I in the imaging department. However, we all know that this is not really true. There have been huge advances in the electronic shutter, as well as the speed and usability of the camera...but is it worth an additional 1300 dollars??? So..., here we go around the prickly pear again. I would say that for most landscape photographers, the original R5 has a striking value proposition. The camera is that good. Last weekend, I had to photograph an event - I was not allowed to use a flash, so high ISO and primes was the story of the day. I went immediately for the Mark I - I did not even consider using the Mark II. This is not to say that the Mark II wouldn't have done a fine job...only that I believed that the Mark I did it better. That said, with the shift towards electronic shutters, the improvements in speed and image quality with the Electronic Shutter (as opposed to Mark I) may justify the upgrade for some users. And did I mention how much fun it is to use? I haven't had 'fun' using a camera body in years. That aside, I’m still hoping Canon releases a proper 'studio' model with the enhanced Autofocus of the Mark II. Everything about the R5 II is otherwise a delight.

Link to Canon EOS R5 Mark II (Currently 4299) at Adorama;

Link to Canon EOS R5 Mark I (Currently 2899) at Adorama:

Link to Article at PC Magazine on the different type of CMOS Sensors.

Photos to Photos Dynamic Range Comparison:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Wild Alaska Video on AF Settings
While at first glance the guy may not inspire confidence, he clearly knows what he is talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNJjdadDE48


- James


Just a friendly reminder - all of these images in this article (and original images on this website) are copyright James Morrissey and the NWP Photo Forum.

If you are new to our website, please feel free to look around and read our many articles and artist showcase interviews.

http://www.nwpphotoforum.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm

If you like the article, please join our forum and I will send you surprisingly rare spam with new articles when I have something that I think is worth posting. You are also encouraged to join the Nature, Wildlife and Pet Photography Forum private Facebook Group.