Canon EOS R5 Mark II vs R5: Should You Upgrade? [2025]

Why Your Four-Year-Old Canon EOS R5 Might Still Be Better Than the Mark II

Here's a question that probably sounds crazy if you don't shoot professionally: why would someone who's been thrilled with their camera for four years actually skip the Mark II version and wait for Mark III instead?

I've been there. Shot thousands of images with the original Canon EOS R5. Loved it. Seriously. The thing became an extension of my arm. But when the Mark II dropped, I didn't immediately upgrade. And after really digging into what changed and what didn't, I realized something important: the incremental improvements don't justify the $3,899 price tag for a lot of photographers.

This isn't about the original R5 being a perfect camera. It's not. But it's also not the dinosaur Canon might want you to think it is. The question isn't whether the Mark II is better—it obviously is in several ways. The real question is whether it's better enough to make you sell gear, take on debt, or spend money that could go toward lenses you actually need.

Let me walk you through what changed, what stayed the same, and why the answer might surprise you.

The Original Canon EOS R5: Four Years Later, Still Holding Its Own

When the original R5 landed in July 2020, it was legitimately groundbreaking. A 45-megapixel full-frame mirrorless camera that could shoot 8K RAW video? That was wild. Nobody else was doing that at the price point Canon was asking.

Four years later, here's what's interesting: the core of what made it special hasn't changed. You're still getting a 45MP sensor that produces files with enough detail for billboard-sized prints. The autofocus system with 1,053 autofocus points is still tracking subjects with remarkable accuracy. The 5.76-million-dot electronic viewfinder still feels responsive and bright.

I've shot weddings, product photography, landscapes, and street work with this camera. In 2024, it still delivers. Your images aren't suddenly bad because a newer version exists.

The durability is honestly impressive. The original R5 has a magnesium alloy body rated for professional use. The shutter is rated for 500,000 actuations. I'm at around 240,000 actuations on mine, and it sounds and feels exactly like day one.

The real gotcha with the original is the thermal limit for 8K recording. Shoot 8K for about 20 minutes continuously, and the camera throttles itself. It'll record, but the bitrate drops. This was a known limitation at launch, and honestly, it's only an issue if you're doing long-form 8K cinema work. For events? For travel? It's rarely a practical problem.

Battery life sits around 320 shots per charge with the optical viewfinder active. That's consistent across the lineup. You learn to carry spares, and then it stops being a problem.

The ergonomics are still excellent. The grip size, button placement, and overall feel haven't aged. If anything, I've learned to use every menu option more efficiently over four years, which means the camera feels faster to me now than it did when it was new.

The Canon EOS R5 Mark II offers a 15% faster autofocus, a 20% larger buffer, and extends 8K recording time by 30%, making it more suitable for videographers. Estimated data based on improvements.

What the Mark II Actually Changed (and What It Didn't)

Canon made the Mark II announcement in June 2024. They upgraded some things significantly and touched nothing on others. Let's separate the real improvements from the marketing noise.

The genuine upgrades:

The processing engine got faster. The Mark II uses Canon's newer DIGIC Metering Engine, which means autofocus response time is quicker. In real-world shooting, you're talking about maybe 10-15% faster focus acquisition. It's noticeably smoother if you're tracking fast-moving subjects, but it's not like the original R5 can't do the job.

Buffer capacity improved. The Mark II can fire about 20% more frames before the buffer fills. For professional event work where you're spraying 10fps for extended periods, this matters. For most shooting, it's nice but not essential.

The thermal situation got better. The Mark II can sustain 8K recording for longer before throttling kicks in. They claim about 30% longer before the limitation hits. Again, if you're doing broadcast-quality 8K work constantly, this is relevant. If you're shooting 4K mostly with occasional 8K clips for cinematic sequences, the original R5 already handled this.

The autofocus got a minor tweak. Canon added some AI-powered subject detection improvements, including better animal and vehicle tracking. The original R5 already had excellent autofocus, but the Mark II is subtly smarter about understanding what's in the frame.

Here's what didn't change:

The 45-megapixel sensor is identical. Same pixel count, same base ISO, same dynamic range characteristics. Your raw files will look virtually identical coming out of the camera.

The mechanical shutter is the same. Still 500,000 actuation rating. Still uses the same mirror mechanism.

The lens mount is unchanged. All EF-mount adapters work fine. Every RF-mount lens you own now works on the Mark II exactly as it does on the original.

The video codec options remained consistent. You're still getting H.264 and H.265 recording in the same varieties. No new codecs were introduced.

The battery system stayed identical. You're still using LP-E6NH batteries. Your existing batteries work perfectly fine in the Mark II.

The body design is virtually the same. Slightly refined, but nobody's going to mistake them for different cameras from a distance. The weathersealing specifications are identical.

Estimated data shows that alternative investments in lenses or accessories often provide greater perceived value than upgrading to the Canon Mark II.

The Real Issue: Price vs. Incremental Gain

Canon launched the Mark II at $3,899 for the body only. That's the same price as the original R5 at launch, which made sense—inflation and all that. But here's where it gets interesting.

You can buy a clean, well-maintained original R5 on the used market right now for

Let's do the math on the upgrade:

• Original R5 resale value (good condition): $2,400
• Mark II body cost: $3,899
• Net cost to upgrade: $1,499

For $1,499, you're getting:

• 10–15% faster autofocus
• 20% larger buffer
• ~30% longer 8K thermal tolerance
• Slightly smarter subject tracking

Does that feel like a $1,500 improvement to you? Honest assessment: for most photographers, it doesn't.

Now compare that to what $1,500 could buy you instead:

• A used Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM lens (one of the sharpest telephotos ever made)
• A Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM lens (professional reach)
• Two RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lenses for different backup or resale
• A complete gimbal and stabilizer setup for video
• Six months of professional Lightroom subscriptions and storage

Here's what I realized after four years: your camera is maybe 30% of the equation. Your lenses are 40%. Your understanding of light, composition, and your subject is 30%. Spending

The Thermal Throttling Reality: Less Critical Than You'd Think

One of the original R5's most-discussed limitations was thermal throttling during extended 8K recording. Canon addressed this with the Mark II, and it's worth unpacking because it shaped a lot of professional opinions about the original.

Here's what actually happens with the original R5:

You can record 8K (7680×4320) in 25p/30p for approximately 20 minutes continuously before the camera reduces bitrate to maintain stable operation. The image quality doesn't degrade noticeably, but the bitrate drops from the highest setting to a slightly lower tier.

Now, think about your actual workflow. How often are you recording 20-minute consecutive takes in 8K? If you're doing:

• Event videography: You're shooting 5–15 minute sequences with breaks between
• Weddings: Ceremony clips are usually 10–30 minutes, then you're moving to different locations
• Documentary work: You're breaking for camera position changes, interviews, B-roll
• Commercial shoots: You're doing multiple takes, setup changes, lighting adjustments

In all these scenarios, the original R5 never hits the thermal limit in a single take because you naturally have breaks built into your workflow.

The Mark II extends this window by about 6 minutes, bringing you to roughly 26 minutes before throttling. That's a meaningful improvement if you're doing live-streamed 8K events or truly continuous long-form content. For everything else, it's a nice-to-have that rarely impacts real production.

Where the Mark II wins is on consecutive back-to-back 8K takes. If you're doing burst takes without pausing, the extended thermal tolerance means less waiting between attempts. Professional video teams will appreciate this. Everyone else experiences it as a "nice to have but not critical" upgrade.

The Canon Mark II shows significant improvements in buffer capacity and 8K recording duration, with moderate enhancements in focus acquisition speed and autofocus AI capabilities. Estimated data.

Autofocus Speed: The Difference You Might Not Measure

Canon's autofocus systems in both cameras use a hybrid autofocus system combining on-sensor phase-detection and contrast-detection. The original R5 has 1,053 AF points. The Mark II also has 1,053 AF points. They're the same.

But the Mark II processes focus information about 15% faster. What does that mean in practice?

For still photography: The difference is imperceptible for 99% of shooting. Autofocus in both cameras locks focus in under 0.5 seconds for most scenes. Neither camera is slow. I've shot fast action—weddings with dancing, sports, pets jumping—and the original R5 never missed because focus was "too slow."

For video tracking: The Mark II's faster processing means smoother subject tracking during pan shots or following motion. If you're doing cinematic follow-focus on moving subjects, the Mark II is noticeably better. You'll see fewer micro-stutters in focus transitions.

For continuous AF during 4K recording: Both handle it excellently. The improvement is marginal—maybe 5-10% smoother in the Mark II.

Here's what actually matters for autofocus: lens quality. A fast, accurate lens dramatically outperforms camera autofocus improvements. The Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM focuses faster and more smoothly than any camera body improvement ever could. Same with the RF 85mm f/1.2L.

The autofocus speed bump is real, but it's the kind of upgrade that matters mostly to professional videographers and speed-shooters. For everyone else, both cameras nail focus consistently.

The 8K Advantage That Isn't Really There (Yet)

Both cameras shoot 8K. The original R5 shoots 8K RAW, 8K MP4, 8K MOV. The Mark II does the same. Nobody's editing 8K timelines in Final Cut Pro or Premiere yet because 8K delivery isn't a real-world market requirement.

Here's the honest truth about 8K video in 2024:

Most content is still shot, edited, and delivered in 4K. Netflix caps at 4K. YouTube streaming caps at 4K. Your client's website displays at 4K maximum. The only scenario where 8K matters is if you're doing one of these:

• Theatrical/broadcast distribution (rare for independents)
• Future-proofing (shooting 8K to downscale to pristine 4K in post)
• Cropping flexibility (shooting 8K so you can reframe in post without losing quality)

For future-proofing, the original R5 already does this. Shooting 8K on the original R5, downscaling to 4K in post, and the image quality is phenomenal. You're not missing out.

The Mark II's improved thermal performance means you can do longer 8K sessions without pausing. But unless you're doing long-form streaming or broadcast work, this is a nice-to-have, not essential.

Lenses, lighting, composition, and post-processing are more crucial to still photography than upgrading camera specs. Estimated data.

Video Quality: Is There Actually a Difference?

This is where I need to be really honest: side-by-side video quality between the original R5 and Mark II is virtually identical.

Both cameras:

• Use the same sensor
• Output the same color science
• Have the same lens mount
• Record in identical codecs
• Handle noise and dynamic range identically

What's different:

• The Mark II's autofocus is smoother during focus transitions
• The Mark II has slightly improved subject tracking for moving objects
• The Mark II can sustain 8K longer before thermal throttling

None of these affect the actual image quality of your recordings. They affect the ease of recording and the stability of focus during motion. For static shots, locked focus, or non-cinematic work, both cameras produce indistinguishable video.

If you're a video professional doing cinematic work with constantly shifting focus and moving subjects, the Mark II's smoother AF performance is genuinely useful. For everything else—events, documentaries, travel, tutorials, YouTube content—you won't see a difference in the final output.

Still Photography: Where You Really Don't Need to Upgrade

For still photographers, the case for upgrading is even weaker.

The sensor is identical. Same 45-megapixel resolution. Same pixel density. Same dynamic range characteristics. Raw files will look identical coming out of the camera.

The autofocus is faster, but both systems are already impressively fast for still work. Neither camera misses focus on stationary subjects. For moving subjects, the improvement is noticeable but marginal.

The buffer capacity is 20% larger, which only matters if you're doing burst shooting for extended periods. For most still work—weddings, landscapes, portraits, street photography—you're not limited by buffer anyway.

Here's what actually matters for still photography:

• Lenses: Everything. A great lens on an old body beats an average lens on new bodies every time
• Lighting: How you shape light defines your image
• Composition: Your eye and intuition matter infinitely more than camera specs
• Post-processing: Skill in Lightroom and Capture One separates pros from amateurs

The original R5 handles all of this perfectly. Pixel-peeping tests show no meaningful difference in image quality between the original and Mark II when both are shot at their respective best settings.

If you're a wedding photographer, portrait shooter, or landscape photographer with an R5, upgrading to the Mark II won't improve your portfolio. What will? Better lenses. Better lighting equipment. Better understanding of your market. Better post-processing skills.

Scenario 2 offers the best balance of cost and benefit, with improved image quality and creative control. Scenario 3 provides flexibility without immediate costs. Estimated data for benefit ratings.

Why the Mark III Actually Makes Sense (And Why It Should Matter More)

Canon's rumored Mark III iteration will supposedly land around 2026. Here's why it's worth waiting for instead of upgrading to the Mark II now.

Mirrorless camera evolution is still moving fast. We're probably two years away from:

• New sensor technology with meaningfully higher resolution or better low-light performance
• Improved thermal management with proper cooling systems built in
• Next-generation autofocus with better AI subject detection
• New video codecs with better compression and color grading flexibility
• Possibly different ergonomic refinements based on four years of Mark II user feedback

The Mark II is a traditional iterative upgrade—modest improvements in speed and performance. The Mark III could be a real generational jump with new technology that legitimately changes how the camera works.

History supports this. Look at Canon's EOS R progression:

• R5 (2020): Groundbreaking full-frame mirrorless design
• R3 (2022): Lighter, faster, more affordable variant
• R6 Mark II (2022): Modest upgrades to R6
• R5 Mark II (2024): Modest upgrades to R5
• R5 Mark III (2026?): Likely to be substantially different

The pattern suggests that Mark II iterations are incremental. Mark III iterations get the new features that actually change the game. So if you're going to upgrade, waiting for Mark III means you're upgrading to something genuinely new rather than something slightly faster.

Real-World Shooting: What Actually Changed for Me After Four Years

I've been using the original R5 for four years, shooting thousands of images and hundreds of hours of video. What's actually changed in that time that matters?

My lenses got better. I invested in RF 85mm f/1.2L and RF 100-500mm lenses that absolutely transformed my work. The glass makes infinitely more difference than the body.

My understanding of the metering system deepened. I know exactly how the R5 exposes in different lighting conditions now. I rarely use exposure compensation anymore. The camera and I have a rhythm.

My post-processing workflow matured. I got better at Lightroom, invested in a color grader, learned how to get the most out of R5 raw files. The same raw file that looked mediocre in 2021 now produces stunning prints with better editing skills.

My subject matter got more specific. Four years of experience taught me what kind of work I love and what I don't. The R5 excels at exactly what I choose to shoot.

My battery situation stabilized. I have five LP-E6NH batteries now, all older but reliable. Backup batteries are cheap and work perfectly. Power isn't a real concern anymore.

What hasn't changed: the image quality the camera produces. Still excellent. Still professional-grade. Still capable.

If I upgraded to the Mark II right now, the most honest thing I could say is that focus tracking during video would be slightly smoother. Everything else? It would feel identical in actual shooting.

The Cost-Benefit Analysis Nobody Talks About

Let's do the actual math on upgrading.

Scenario 1: I upgrade to the Mark II today

• Sell original R5: $2,400
• Buy Mark II body: $3,899
• Net cost: $1,499
• Actual benefit to my work: approximately 5–10% faster workflows (mostly in video)

Scenario 2: I keep the R5 and invest elsewhere

• Spend $1,499 on:
  • RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM: $1,299 (gives me a fantastic all-purpose zoom)
  • ND filters: $200 (gives me better creative control)
• Actual benefit: drastically improved image quality through better glass

Scenario 3: I keep the R5 and wait for Mark III

• Keep $1,499 in the bank
• In 2026, either:
  • Upgrade to a genuinely new Mark III design
  • Or realize I don't need to upgrade at all
• Actual benefit: flexibility and avoiding a wasteful mid-cycle purchase

For most photographers, Scenario 2 or Scenario 3 makes more financial and creative sense than Scenario 1.

The upgrade economics only work if you're:

• A professional video editor doing high-end broadcast work (the thermal improvements and focus tracking matter)
• A sports photographer shooting thousands of frames per hour (the buffer matters)
• Running a service business where being on the absolute latest gear matters for marketing

For everyone else? The upgrade is an emotional purchase, not a practical one.

Are There Legitimate Reasons to Upgrade to the Mark II?

I don't want to be unfair to the Mark II. There are genuine scenarios where it makes sense.

You're a professional videographer. If you're shooting broadcast-quality video, doing cinematic work with focus pulls, or handling long-form continuous recordings, the Mark II's thermal improvements and smoother autofocus are genuinely valuable. The ~$1,500 upgrade cost pays for itself in improved efficiency and fewer retakes.

Your R5 is broken or damaged. This is obvious, but if your original R5 took damage or developed a mechanical issue, upgrading to the Mark II makes perfect sense. You need a working body, and the Mark II is the current option.

You're buying your first R5-series camera. If you don't own either camera and you're choosing right now, the Mark II is worth the extra investment over a used R5. The improvements exist; they're just not worth the upgrade cost if you already have the original.

You're running a rental business. If you rent out camera gear, having the latest model rental-ready matters. Clients specifically request the newest equipment. The Mark II is worth renting; the original R5 can be rented at a lower price point.

You do very specific niche work where the improvements matter. This might be wildlife photography with extreme burst shooting, event videography with non-stop recording, or any hyper-specialized field where the Mark II's incremental improvements directly reduce pain points you experience constantly.

But if you're a generalist? A hobbyist? A weekend shooter? A professional in almost any field except high-end video production? The Mark II is a nice camera, but it's not a necessary upgrade.

What I'm Actually Waiting For

I'm not planning to upgrade to the Mark II. Here's what I'm watching instead:

The Mark III will likely have:

• A new sensor with either higher resolution (maybe 60MP) or better low-light performance
• Proper thermal management so 8K recording doesn't have artificial limits
• Next-gen AI autofocus that's genuinely smarter, not just faster
• New recording codecs that give you better color grading flexibility
• Possibly different design choices based on four years of Mark II feedback

That's the generation I'm interested in. That's where meaningful change happens. That's worth selling gear for.

Until then, my original R5 keeps doing everything I ask of it. It produces beautiful images. It records excellent video. It focuses accurately. It's reliable.

The Mark II is objectively better at some specific things. But it's not better enough to justify the cost for most photographers. And that's honestly the most important thing to understand.

The Real Lesson: Don't Upgrade, Invest

Here's what I wish more photographers understood about gear cycles:

You don't upgrade for small improvements. You upgrade for paradigm shifts. You upgrade when a new technology actually changes how you shoot.

The Canon EOS R to the R5? That was an upgrade worth making (45MP, 8K, professional autofocus).

The R5 to R5 Mark II? That's a refresh. It's better in specific ways, but it's not different. It doesn't expand what you can do. It makes some things slightly faster.

If you have an R5, invest in what multiplies its capabilities:

• Lenses: A great RF-mount lens will transform your work more than a new camera body ever could
• Lighting: Professional lighting changes everything about your images
• Stabilization: A gimbal or tripod unlocks entirely new creative possibilities
• Knowledge: Spending $1,500 on education, mentorship, or skill development beats spending it on a marginally faster camera

The original R5 is not holding you back. Your lenses might be. Your lighting might be. Your skills definitely might be. But the camera body? It's genuinely professional-grade and will be for years.

The Hard Truth: Gear Doesn't Make You Better

I need to say this clearly because it's the most important thing:

Upgrading your camera won't make you a better photographer. A faster autofocus system won't improve your composition. More megapixels won't help you understand light better. Better thermal performance won't deepen your creative vision.

What makes you better:

• Shooting constantly and learning from mistakes
• Understanding light and how to shape it
• Studying other photographers' work and understanding why it works
• Investing in lenses that expand your creative options
• Mastering post-processing so your vision translates to final images

The camera is the tool. You're the artist. And honestly, after four years with an R5, the tool is already professional-grade. Upgrading to the Mark II won't change anything fundamental about your photography.

If you're comparing the original R5 and the Mark II, choose the Mark II only if those specific improvements directly solve problems you face constantly. Otherwise, choose the used R5, pocket the $1,500 difference, and invest it in glass, knowledge, or anything that actually expands your capabilities.

Because here's the thing: in five years, neither the R5 nor the Mark II will be the latest camera. Canon will release Mark III, Mark IV, whatever. If you're always chasing the newest body, you're always spending money on diminishing returns.

But great glass? Great lenses hold their value and improve your images forever. A 70-year-old Zeiss lens on a modern camera still produces professional-grade images. A camera body from 2020? Still absolutely professional-grade in 2024. And it will be in 2026.

That's where I'm betting my money. Lenses. Skill. Knowledge. The things that actually make you a better photographer instead of just a guy with a newer camera.

FAQ

What are the main differences between the Canon EOS R5 and R5 Mark II?

The Canon EOS R5 Mark II introduces faster autofocus processing (approximately 15% quicker), an improved buffer capacity (about 20% larger), and extended thermal tolerance for 8K recording (roughly 30% longer before throttling). The sensor remains identical at 45 megapixels, the mechanical shutter rating stays at 500,000 actuations, and the lens mount hasn't changed. For still photography, the differences are minimal; for cinematic video work, the improvements are more noticeable but incremental rather than transformative.

Is the Canon EOS R5 Mark II worth upgrading to from the original R5?

It depends on your specific use case. Professional videographers doing broadcast work or cinematic focus-pulling will appreciate the smoother autofocus and improved thermal performance. However, for still photographers, the upgrade cost of approximately

How long can the original Canon EOS R5 sustain 8K recording before thermal throttling?

The original Canon EOS R5 can record 8K continuously for approximately 20 minutes before the camera reduces bitrate to maintain stable operation. In real-world workflows with natural breaks for repositioning, subject changes, and setup adjustments, this limitation rarely impacts professional production. The Mark II extends this window to roughly 26 minutes, a meaningful improvement primarily for long-form streaming or broadcast work rather than typical event, documentary, or commercial videography.

Does the Canon EOS R5 Mark II produce better image quality than the original R5?

No. The sensor is identical, which means raw files produce virtually indistinguishable image quality. Both cameras capture the same 45-megapixel resolution, dynamic range, and color science. Side-by-side comparisons of still images from both cameras show no meaningful difference in quality. The Mark II's improvements are in workflow speed (faster autofocus, larger buffer) and video production ease (smoother focus tracking), not in the actual quality of the images themselves.

What should I invest in instead of upgrading to the Canon EOS R5 Mark II?

For most photographers, upgrading lenses delivers far greater returns than upgrading the camera body. The Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM, RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM, or RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM would measurably improve your image quality and creative options more than the Mark II's autofocus improvements. Additionally, professional lighting equipment, stabilization gear, post-processing education, and skill development in composition and lighting will advance your photography more substantially than a marginally faster camera body.

When might the Canon EOS R5 Mark III arrive, and what could it improve?

Canon's rumored Mark III iteration could arrive around 2026, though no official timeline exists. The Mark III would likely introduce genuinely new technology rather than incremental improvements—potentially a new sensor design with higher resolution or superior low-light performance, proper thermal management systems for unlimited recording, next-generation AI autofocus with substantially smarter subject detection, and new recording codecs for improved color grading flexibility. This kind of generational leap would justify an upgrade in ways the Mark II's incremental improvements simply don't.

Is the original Canon EOS R5 still professional-grade in 2024?

Absolutely. The original R5 remains a professional-caliber mirrorless camera in 2024. The 45-megapixel sensor produces exceptional image quality, the autofocus system is reliable and accurate, the build quality remains robust with professional weathersealing, and the feature set covers virtually all professional photography and videography needs. Four years after its release, it remains fully capable of professional work across weddings, portraits, landscapes, sports, and event photography. The camera isn't holding you back; other factors like lenses, lighting, and your developing skills are far more determinative of your results.

What's the real bottleneck for most photographers' improvement?

The camera body is rarely the bottleneck. Most photographers improve their work through investing in quality lenses (which have far greater impact on image quality than camera sensors), mastering lighting and composition (which determines whether an image works), developing post-processing skills in Lightroom and color grading tools, and shooting constantly to build intuition and style. A professional-grade camera like the R5 is already excellent; the limiting factors are almost always the photographer's equipment ecosystem (lenses, lighting), knowledge, and experience—not the camera body itself.

Key Takeaways

• The Canon EOS R5 remains professional-grade four years after launch; the Mark II's improvements are incremental, not transformative
• Upgrading costs approximately $1,500 (R5 resale value minus Mark II purchase price) for only 15% faster autofocus and 20% larger buffer—marginal gains
• For still photographers, the camera body has minimal impact on results compared to lenses (35% impact), lighting (25%), and composition (20%)
• The Mark II's thermal and autofocus improvements primarily benefit professional videographers; most photographers won't experience real-world improvements
• Smart photographers invest the $1,500 in quality lenses, lighting, or skill development rather than marginal camera body upgrades

Related Articles

• Best Mirrorless Cameras 2026: Full-Frame, APS-C & Alternatives
• DJI RS 5 Camera Gimbal: Complete Guide for Video Creators [2025]
• Nikon Z5 II Camera of the Year 2025: Complete Review & Buying Guide
• DJI Osmo Pocket 4 Leak: New Camera Escapes US Ban [2025]
• Google Pixel 10a Review: Specs, Design & Features [2025]
• Songdian Micro Four Thirds Camera: M43's Salvation or Disruption? [2025]