I've been hesitating between these two bodies for months now. I mostly do nature and mountain photography, and I really want quality in terms of resolution. I've read tons of conflicting opinions online, so I'd like to know what you guys actually think about it.
Both do exceptional work in the mountains, but they're not really playing in the same league depending on what you prioritize. The R5 Mark II has this fascinating autofocus with animal eye detection that actually works on landscapes (weird but useful when you're framing fast), and the in-body stabilization is solid. The Sony A7R V leans more toward color science - its RAW files need less post-processing if you like natural tones, and honestly for landscape work that's pretty significant. In terms of raw resolution that you're after, it's splitting hairs between the two.
Now, one thing people often forget: test them out at altitude and in cold weather before buying. Not the temperature in your living room, I mean actually go out with both for a few hours. One will be more ergonomic with your hiking gloves, one might have weird reflections on the LCD depending on the light, one will feel more natural to handle when you're tired after a climb. It's a detail except you're gonna be carrying this thing 8 hours straight on a ridge.
What kind of lenses are you using right now, and are you doing ultra-wide angle or more tele to compress the shot?
What really matters for mountain photography is stabilization and reliability in the cold, not just raw resolution - both cameras give you insane detail anyway. Canon has a reputation for being more rugged and its stabilization works well, but Sony handles highlights and sky gradients better, which matters a lot in landscape work. Beyond that it's mainly about which lenses you're going to use and how comfortable the camera feels in your hands - I'd recommend going to a store and trying them both out before you decide, because on paper they both do solid work.
Log into answer.
