>>3789535>The shots don't compare greatly as the EF 24-70 is mounted on the>5Ds vs EOS R on the RF lenses. Isn't that the point though if you're looking at a 5Ds vs anything but the R5? Even with the RF zooms on an R5 it's going to remain too close to call in the real world (in these examples).
>Still, the 24-70 II was a stroke of luck, second to none and outperforming some low-end primes.It wasn't a "stroke of luck." There are a ton of excellent lenses in EF. RF mount is the EF mount with a shorter flange distance. That helps lens designers improve upon the designs for SOME lenses, not all. And improvements may not be IQ but feature related (size/weight or aperture). Or manufacturing cost related, which may or may not reach your pocket as opposed to the corporate bottom line.
The idea that mirrorless lenses are automatically better is a myth. In some cases there's no gain. In others there's an IQ gain because the manufacturer thought mirrorless was a good time to redo the old design. And in a few select cases the shorter flange might help a lens designer produce something that would be difficult to do on a SLR.
And in some cases you're spending more for the mirrorless version for nothing. Compare the RF 50mm f/1.8 to Canon's previous EF designs. $75 more for virtually no IQ gain? The Tamron 45 f/1.8 VC, a flappy mirror lens, buries them all.
>Honestly, would you really consider the camera if you didn't already have it or parts of the system?Hell yes. For the price of an R5 body with no lenses you can put together a 5Ds or 5DsR kit that will rival low/mid level MF systems as well as the R5. If you don't need video you're not missing much. Some nice feature improvements to be sure, but nothing that is critical even when shooting action.
>I wouldn't buy the 6D today, although apart from the megapixels it's comparable to the 5Ds, available for a ridiculous price. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 6D to someone if it fit their needs.
