Is it unreasonable to keep Lumix (S5ii and S9) for video and buy a Canon R5 just for photography?
I need some advice. I recently switched from a Canon R6 II and R7 to a Lumix setup — an S5 II and S9 with a Sigma 24–70, a few Sigma primes, and the 20–60 kit lens. My main reasons for switching were the full-size HDMI port (mini HDMI was driving me insane with constant cable failures), open-gate recording, sigma lenses (I absolutely love using them and it’s something canon doesn’t have), and the stronger video-focused features in general.
Since buying the Lumix cameras, I’ve been really busy with my full-time video job, where all kit is supplied. I mainly use the Sony gear provided (which I’m not a fan of), so my personal Lumix setup hasn’t had loads of real-world use yet. I have used the S5 II on a few smaller things and loved it.
Recently, I brought the S5 II along to a corporate shoot because we were short on company gear. It performed really well for the interview segment, but I noticed it really struggled to keep reliable autofocus during headshots.
I grew my craft through gig photography, and I shot my first gig in ages the other day — but the S5 II’s autofocus made it almost unusable. It was too slow, and I kept missing key moments. I genuinely love shooting gigs and want to get back into it as a side hustle alongside my full-time job, but right now the camera doesn’t feel suitable.
On top of that, I agreed to shoot a friend’s wedding (they’ve struggled to find a photographer), and honestly, I don’t feel confident using the S5 II for that either.
So here’s my question:
Am I being completely unreasonable if I buy a used Canon R5 and RF 24–70 just for photography while keeping the Lumix setup for video work? Especially since gig photography could potentially lead to video work for bands, which is where the Lumix system shines for me.
Or… am I simply using the S5 II wrong?