Marketplace
Cheaper than recent deal at camera house, looks like you can get a decent lens for 1200
Canon EOS R5 Mark II Mirrorless Camera (Body Only) $5049.74 + $7.95 Delivery @ Ryda via Catch
80
Farmos on 06/03/2025 - 19:21 catch.com.au (237 clicks)
Last edited 10/03/2025 - 12:26 by 2 other users
Last edited 10/03/2025 - 12:26 by 2 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
Why is it falling off a cliff?
Just initial hype over. Still a fantastic camera - class leading features.
good deal! Pretty tempting… wait for R6 Mark III or buy this…
Only if you need 45MP…….. otherwise spend the saved $$$ on lens.
Ken Rockwell gives this lens the thumbs up $990 at digi direct https://www.digidirect.com.au/canon-rf-100-400mm-f-5-6-8-is-…
https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-400mm.htm
Add a multiplier for another $400
I have that lens, its sensational for $900 for daylight sport.
I'd say that if you're into stills, think really well about what you need
r5 and mkii are great cameras, sure, but they are an overkill for stills
they seem to be the only choice if you want a decent res FF sensor, since they killed the R. but you can still get the R refurbished from Ted's, I got one for studio work for $1200 from Ted's on the last 2nd hand sale. that's a respectable 30mp sensor that goes into 5d mk iv - a camera still sold new today, and used worldwide by the pros. and it came almost new with just couple thousand shutter count. I added 2 year warranty for $99 for a piece of mind, and it's been super solid. eye focus is reliable, RAW files easy to process, results much better than 24mp r6 mk ii I used before that, just thanks to added res and croppability of 30mp
r5 mk ii is a great camera if you're shooting video and fast pace action, for the rest it's just marginally better than R which you could get 4 grand cheaper and put that money towards better glass and you should.
just my 5c
id agree but i'd take the R5 easily over an R
Not sure why you'd pay for 2 years more warranty, 5 years should be enough for most people…I got the r5mk2 as i shoot sports mainly, if i didnt i would have been happy with the original.
for sports fast paced R would struggle, but in studio and even outdoor portraiture, R is perfect, and r5 would be too much
before R, before R6 mkii, I used 6d mkii in studio, and even that was good, just a bit more noise where you wouldn't expect it, and raw files take just a tad more work to start looking nice. otherwise focusing was super solid in Live View with dual pixel on sensor focusing.
bottom line is R5 isn't really needed to get nice RAW files, apart from when you need that high res, or need that focusing for fast paced action, but that's what I said right off the bat: think about what you really need, and rather put the budget towards better glass if you can
you can use an old DSLR or crop sensor camera for studio and outdoor portraits - as you mentioned the glass is the determining factor
the R5 is about as good as you'll get for image quality but you are right, so such thing as too much, just enough for your needs :)
but then at the same time, how much is too much? for me it's more of a hobby, and I set the budget to spend
if you earn money with it, maybe makes sense to get the best and write it off
but once again if you earn money with stills, 5d mk iv and EF lenses are a cheaper way to do that and that's why Canon still sells it
Buying this camera and a "decent" lens is getting things entirely arse-about
$5347 at OP link right now. Am I missing something?
I'm negging as I think there will be even further price cuts due to demand falling off a cliff.