This is question that ask when I see someone using a product that I am thinking about purchasing. Question for people that own the R5, would you purchase another R5 and why or why not.
Knowing what the body cost and the investment most will have in L glass, again the R5 is the only choice for a high mp mirrorless if you want to stick with Canon.I think the context is more like, if you had an R5 and accidentally dropped off a cliff into the ocean, would you replace it with another R5 or get something else?
Example: my EOS M died and the cost to repair it was the same as buying a new one, and just $20 less than the then-current M2. So I bought an M2.
With respect, “Would you buy another R5?,” isn’t the sane question as, “Would you buy the R5 again?” The first, asked of current R5 owners, does imply buying a second camera.It's a simple question, would you buy another one of any product. in case aR5. If the answer is yes, they must be happy with the product, doesn't mean they're going out and buy a second one. It just means they're happy with their purchase decision and they would purchase the same item over again, it's just a good indicator that the product functions as intended.
Really it is not a simple question. A camera at this level is usually much cheaper than the investment in lenses. One thing I have learned about Canon over the years is that the niche a camera body fills, it usually performs very well in that niche. Seldom are there two cameras in the same niche. There are bodies with less functions, higher mp bodies that are slower, lower mp bodies that are faster and a high end series that is fast and durable. If you have bought in to the Canon R system and you are not happy with the R5 most likely it is because of a particular niche or function it doesn't full fill.It's a simple question, would you buy another one of any product. in case aR5. If the answer is yes, they must be happy with the product, doesn't mean they're going out and buy a second one. It just means they're happy with their purchase decision and they would purchase the same item over again, it's just a good indicator that the product functions as intended.
In the above situation I would be seriously tempted to replace my R5 with an R3 + used RP. I suspect that the improved AF would do more for me than the increased resolution in the R5. The used RP would be for situations where I want to shoot something macro-ish low to the ground, the grip on the R3 would get in the way of that.I think the context is more like, if you had an R5 and accidentally dropped off a cliff into the ocean, would you replace it with another R5 or get something else?
Good comments. This is the kind of comparison you do not get by reading specs. I had been looking for someone that had hands on both the R5 and R3.After purchasing an R3, I would not purchase another R5 and actually have put my R5 up for sale.
Too many missed images that I surely would have got with my pro dslr bodies. The R5 is good, but the R3 autofocus is much better.
More accurate autofocus, no hunting when looking for birds in the canopy. And after shooting foxes with both cameras the R3 is a clear winner with more keepers and more of the difficult shots like the kits jumping in bad light.