Canon EOS R5 Mark IIvsSony a6700: Which to Buy

The Canon EOS R5 Mark II uses a 45 MP full-frame stacked sensor; the Sony a6700 uses a 26 MP APS-C CMOS chip. That gap shows up twice in use. First, cropping: a 45 MP file survives a heavy crop and still prints large, while a 26 MP APS-C file has much less room. Second, light: the larger sensor gathers more of it, which helps in dim venues.

Stacked design also means the Canon reads out faster, which feeds into autofocus tracking and rolling-shutter behavior. The Sony's smaller sensor and body are what make it light, so for travel and everyday carry the trade is deliberate rather than a shortcoming.

Continuous shooting is the clearest split. The Canon does 12 fps with the mechanical shutter and 30 fps electronically, while the Sony tops out at 11 fps either way. For sports, wildlife and any moving subject, that is the difference between catching the peak moment and missing it.

The Canon also adds a pre-burst: it buffers up to 15 shots, roughly half a second at 30 fps, before you fully press the shutter. If you tend to react a beat late, that buffer rescues the frame you wanted. Both cameras detect people, animals, birds, cars, trains and planes; the Canon adds motorcycle, the Sony adds insect.

The Canon records 8K and can capture raw video internally, which gives colorists far more latitude to push exposure and color in post. Its codec list includes ProRes RAW over HDMI to an external recorder and Cinema RAW Light internally. The Sony tops out at 4K and offers no raw recording at all.

Where the Sony answers back is frame rate. It reaches 120 fps in 4K, though only with a crop; full-width 4K stops at 60p on both cameras. For slow-motion in a small kit, that is a real advantage. Both shoot 10-bit and both support log profiles, so the grading workflow is similar for standard footage.

The Canon's electronic viewfinder is far more detailed at 5.76 M dots against 2.36 M dots, and it magnifies more at 0.76x versus 0.7x. Manual focus and framing are noticeably easier, especially with fast primes. Its rear screen is also roughly twice as sharp.

Handling cuts the other way. The Sony weighs 493 g versus 746 g and is smaller in every dimension, so it disappears into a bag and stays comfortable on a long day. The Canon counters with weather sealing rated dust and drip resistant, which is missing from the Sony's published specs, plus two card slots instead of one and a full-size HDMI port rather than micro. Two slots means backup or separating stills from video without swapping cards.

The Canon is rated for 630 shots per charge against 570 for the Sony. In practice the gap is modest and both handle a normal day of stills. Video drains either body faster than the CIPA figure suggests.

Both charge and run over USB, so a power bank covers a long shoot on either one. If you shoot multi-day events, the Canon's two card slots matter more than the battery margin, since you can keep shooting while one card fills.