RAID 5 vs. RAID 10: Which should I use?

If I accidentally posted this in the wrong sub, feel free to move it to the right spot.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the actual difference in read and write performance between RAID 5 and RAID 10. I’ve played around with those online calculators, and sure, they give you some numbers, but I want to know what actually happens when you're sitting there waiting for files to move.
The math says RAID 5 gives me 3x read speeds but zero extra help on the write side.
Then RAID 10 supposedly bumps me up to 4x read and 2x write.
But what does that look like in the real world? I’m looking at using four drives for either setup to store a massive pile of photos and video footage.
I’d probably just toss them into an external enclosure, maybe something from Western Digital or Dell Technologies, and eventually use it as a little media center to stream stuff to my TV.
With RAID 5, I’d walk away with about 3/4 of the total capacity for my files, leaving 1/4 for parity.
With RAID 10, I’m basically stuck with a 50/50 split on usable space.
Has anyone here actually lived through these speed differences? Like, how does it feel when you're actually working? Would you rather have a bigger bucket of storage even if it’s slower, or go for the speed boost and sacrifice the space?
Thanks a ton. 🙂

So, how exactly are you planning to hook up to those drives? If you’re going through the network, you’ll be lucky if you even hit standard speeds for decent disks, let alone try to squeeze anything out of these "accelerated" ones.

Yeah, so it’s all going to be hooked up over the network. It won't actually be sitting inside the computer itself. I've got this little box off to the side that stays powered down unless I really need it. But looking at how things work in the real world... those speeds... is the network really that much of a bottleneck?

Look, if you're running on a Gigabit Ethernet connection, you're capped at 125 MB/s anyway, which is plenty fast enough for any decent drive to hit...