canon eos r5 or nikon z7 ii for nightscapes?

[ivaldas]

Hi, cannot make up my mind which one to buy for nightscape photography here in Florida.
I'm planning to shoot long exposures. Rumor is that r5 overheats a lot.
Thanks!

 

[Strodav]

Canon “fixed” the overheating problem with video on the R5 with updated firmware. You didn’t mention what system you have now. If you already have Nikon bodies, then you can use your existing FX glass with the FTZ adapter while saving for the improved Z glass. If you are already invested in Canon, why change systems? To me, Nikon has a slight advantage in IQ, but theR5 has a big advantage with AF, especially animal/bird eye AF as well as video capability.

 

[ivaldas]

I Don't have either Canon nor Nikon, starting a new setup. I'm planning to shoot milky way with foreground, need a lot of long exposures for stacking. So all I need is stills, no video. Autofocus is not a priority, most of the time I will be focusing manually.
Thank You for Your response!

 

[Strodav]

I Don't have either Canon nor Nikon, starting a new setup. I'm planning to shoot milky way with foreground, need a lot of long exposures for stacking. So all I need is stills, no video. Autofocus is not a priority, most of the time I will be focusing manually.
Thank You for Your response!

I am invested in Nikon, so take my recommendation with a grain of salt, but the Z7 might be the best choice for you. You want a higher resolution mirrorless camera for astrophotography and landscapes, so either of the Z7s at 45.7 mp or the R5 at 45mp or the Sony A7R IV at 61mp would fit your needs. The IQ with all of these cameras is excellent, but you can't beat the price on the Z7 at $2500 (body only) compared to $3000 for the Z7 II, $4000 for the Canon R5 and $3000 for the A7RIV. The IQ between the Z7 and Z7 II is the same, but the Z7 II has an improved AF system and higher frame rate, which is not a factor in landscape photography. The R5 has a big advantage in AF, which is important for wildlife / birding / sports / action, but not so important for landscape or general photography. The R5 has better video capability compared to either of the Zs, but is not a key factor to you. The A7R IV is not very far behind the R5 in AF and video capability. As far as glass goes, Canon is a bit ahead of Nikon in releasing mirrorless glass, but the stuff Nikon has out there now should more than meet your needs and they have announced new products that will be available shortly. Sony's glass is excellent and they have a full range of lenses that would fit your needs.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[ivaldas]

I am invested in Nikon, so take my recommendation with a grain of salt, but the Z7 might be the best choice for you. You want a higher resolution mirrorless camera for astrophotography and landscapes, so either of the Z7s at 45.7 mp or the R5 at 45mp or the Sony A7R IV at 61mp would fit your needs. The IQ with all of these cameras is excellent, but you can't beat the price on the Z7 at $2500 (body only) compared to $3000 for the Z7 II, $4000 for the Canon R5 and $3000 for the A7RIV. The IQ between the Z7 and Z7 II is the same, but the Z7 II has an improved AF system and higher frame rate, which is not a factor in landscape photography. The R5 has a big advantage in AF, which is important for wildlife / birding / sports / action, but not so important for landscape or general photography. The R5 has better video capability compared to either of the Zs, but is not a key factor to you. The A7R IV is not very far behind the R5 in AF and video capability. As far as glass goes, Canon is a bit ahead of Nikon in releasing mirrorless glass, but the stuff Nikon has out there now should more than meet your needs and they have announced new products that will be available shortly. Sony's glass is excellent and they have a full range of lenses that would fit your needs.

Good luck with your decision.

I couldn't ask for better explanation-recommendation, thanks a lot Strodav! Nikon Z 7 it is!

 

[photoflyer]

By nightscapes photography I assume you mean photos and not video. Overheating is not an issue for stills and not much of an issue for most video applications.

I have the R6 and it absolutely incredible for low light high ISO photography. With the money you will save on the R6 get a good lens. I'm going to get the R7 when it comes out.

This was shot hand held with a non-image stabilized lens at 1/30 of a second at ISO 25600. Read that again. It is incredible.

 

[Strodav]

By nightscapes photography I assume you mean photos and not video. Overheating is not an issue for stills and not much of an issue for most video applications.

I have the R6 and it absolutely incredible for low light high ISO photography. With the money you will save on the R6 get a good lens. I'm going to get the R7 when it comes out.

This was shot hand held with a non-image stabilized lens at 1/30 of a second at ISO 25600. Read that again. It is incredible.

View attachment 203592

The R6 is an impressive camera, but at 20mp. For landscapes and Astro photography the more pixels the better.

 

[photoflyer]

The R6 is an impressive camera, but at 20mp. For landscapes and Astro photography the more pixels the better.

I don't want to turn this into a megapixels thread but I will say this. I view the camera as a system that includes the camera itself, the lens, tripod and lighting. Oh, and the photographer. The results are dependent on how well all of those components work together. Good camera, bad lens = poor result. Good camera, great lens, bad photographer = poor results. I have an old 30D that I use on the Kayak. Some of my favorite shots are taken with that camera...8 megapixels. With anything technical there is a tradeoff but the R6 has taught me not fall into the megapixel trap. It produces incredible images with rich color and details in the highlights and shadow even in extreme conditions. Can I crop as much as the R5? No. Does that stop me from taking landscapes and astrophotography shots? No. I will never enlarge anything more than 11x17 if that. Having said that, I hope the R7 is around 30 megapixels given that I will use it for sports and wildlife. I would buy the R6 again and in fact my experience with it has motivated me to get on the list for the R7 when it is announced.

 

[beagle100]

The R6 is an impressive camera, but at 20mp. For landscapes and Astro photography the more pixels the better.

I don't want to turn this into a megapixels thread but I will say this. I view the camera as a system that includes the camera itself, the lens, tripod and lighting. Oh, and the photographer. The results are dependent on how well all of those components work together. Good camera, bad lens = poor result. Good camera, great lens, bad photographer = poor results. I have an old 30D that I use on the Kayak. Some of my favorite shots are taken with that camera...8 megapixels. With anything technical there is a tradeoff but the R6 has taught me not fall into the megapixel trap. It produces incredible images with rich color and details in the highlights and shadow even in extreme conditions. Can I crop as much as the R5? No. Does that stop me from taking landscapes and astrophotography shots? No. I will never enlarge anything more than 11x17 if that. Having said that, I hope the R7 is around 30 megapixels given that I will use it for sports and wildlife. I would buy the R6 again and in fact my experience with it has motivated me to get on the list for the R7 when it is announced.

yes, at some point more megapixels may not mean much

 

[Scotland Photographer]

Hi, cannot make up my mind which one to buy for nightscape photography here in Florida.
I'm planning to shoot long exposures. Rumor is that r5 overheats a lot.
Thanks!

Hi! The EOS R5 doesn't overheat at all when using it for photos, only for 4k + video shoots. You'll be fine for photos.

 

[Strodav]

The more sensor elements (sensils) you can put on your subject, the more detail you can capture. If you are into landscapes / seascapes / sunrises / sunsets / cityscapes / astrophotography where you are using wider angle glass for a large FOV and/or interested in poster size prints, then the more mp the better and low light capability, fps, and AF are not as important. If you are into wildlife / birding / sports / anything with action, you are more interested in reach, fps, AF performance and low light capability, and mp is a little lower on the must have list. For general purpose photography and where the images are mainly displayed on social media, then anything at or above 12mp will do and fps, lower light capability, AF performance just need to be adequate. Then there's video capability.

Right now, the only cameras out there that do it all are the R5 and A1. Since I'm invested in Nikon and am not ready to switch to mirrorless, I use a D500 (APS-C, 20.9mp, 10fps, good AF system, good low light capability) for wildlife / birding and a D850 (FF, 45.7mp, 7fps, good AF system) for everything else. The moral of the story is to pick the right camera(s) for what you want to shoot.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

The more sensor elements (sensils) you can put on your subject, the more detail you can capture. If you are into landscapes / seascapes / sunrises / sunsets / cityscapes / astrophotography where you are using wider angle glass for a large FOV and/or interested in poster size prints, then the more mp the better and low light capability, fps, and AF are not as important. If you are into wildlife / birding / sports / anything with action, you are more interested in reach, fps, AF performance and low light capability, and mp is a little lower on the must have list. For general purpose photography and where the images are mainly displayed on social media, then anything at or above 12mp will do and fps, lower light capability, AF performance just need to be adequate. Then there's video capability.

Right now, the only cameras out there that do it all are the R5 and A1. Since I'm invested in Nikon and am not ready to switch to mirrorless, I use a D500 (APS-C, 20.9mp, 10fps, good AF system, good low light capability) for wildlife / birding and a D850 (FF, 45.7mp, 7fps, good AF system) for everything else. The moral of the story is to pick the right camera(s) for what you want to shoot.

Or get the Sony a1 and get it all .

 

[PhilW]

I would go with a Sony camera in the Alpha series. They have the E-mount system which allows you to use any brand name lens with the appropriate adapter. I have a Sony A7ii and am able to use Sony/Minolta A mount, Canon EF mount and Minolta MD mount lenses. There are also adapters for Nikon lenses. As stated in a book, the E mount gives you a universal camera.

 

[beagle100]

Hi, cannot make up my mind which one to buy for nightscape photography here in Florida.
I'm planning to shoot long exposures. Rumor is that r5 overheats a lot.
Thanks!

Of course the Canon R5 is the best .. AF auto focus .. MP's ... but it cost $$ !!

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Tinstafl]

I have the R5 and the Z 6ii and the Z7. I would choose the z6ii over all of them for night work.