The R5 is a (near) perfect for me and I´m now considering adding a second body if chance comes along. The pre-capture feature and ability to assign "people, animal, vehicle" AF to a button are the only two things I miss from the mkii version and they are not nearly enough to tempt me to "upgrade". I'll be with the R5 for a long, long time.

I don´t know the exact difference (other from the spec sheet) between the R6ii/ R6iii and R5 EVF, but I know the difference between the R8´s EVF and the R5´s... boy, it really is night and day. The R8 EVF works for casual and slow photography, but with fast paced kids you really feel or see the difference.

It was really interesting to read about your buyers remorse: when the R6iii came out, I was like: wow, should I trade? But I figure I´d miss the top LCD (using the R8 I can tell you: yes, I do! although the wheel has advantages) and maybe a bit smaller files would be great... but in the end, the R5 is the right camera for me. Period

Hope the service runs a long time.

R5 what a camera it is. Near perfect. Great image quality, fantastic all rounder. It’s still worth while buying. It removed all excuses of blame on the camera. Anything wrong and it’s the photographers fault. I’ve been in no rush to upgrade. 45MP is great to have. For me the best camera Canon ever made (and I’ve had a lot of them).

Canon Rumors said:

There was nothing wrong with the EOS R

See full article...

Click to expand...

Not particularly "wrong", but they were flawed to some points and lagged behind the time. The e-shutter was practically unusable, FPS an absolute joke and the "no-joystick-but-a-touchbar" disaster haunted Canon for a while.

But, I do still miss my R, although I love the R5!

Ozarker said:

Wow! The VCM series of lenses make an impressive set of primes. I really like they are ,besides this 14mm, all the same size.

Click to expand...

This is where focal-dedicated rear lens-caps would make sense!

I have a R6ii and a R5 and I cannot see any real world resolution difference between their EVF units. I actually prefer the EVF from my R6ii over the R5 because it’s got a bit more contrast and bite.

Ozarker said:

But what about a 10-20mm?

Click to expand...

Not bad, a very good lens, yet far too specific in use for me. This is what I like about the 15-35, extending from UWA to a moderate WA. I often use the extremes, and also 24mm, but less what is in between.
I certainly would buy (again) the 24-70, but I'm afraid the day I buy one will correspond to Canon announcing mk.II. This waiting is "killing" me!

R5 is a beast camera and better than R6 MkIII for photography. Dynamic range is also much better!

I just helped my wife change her settings on her R5 last night in preparation for a day in the woods today. I was just thinking how awesome a camera that was. Such a leap. I prefer my Mark II for almost everything, but I'm not sure there will be another body launch that did so much at once - at least for my weird needs. Going to 20 fps with 45 megapixels, and with that ability to raise shadows so well. It dragged a lot of us happily into mirrorless. Also, and underappreciated, it is a freaking tank for taking abuse. I've had them outside in rain for multiple nights in a row (not on purpose) and then had them freeze. Dropped them from 4 feet onto concrete. For some, the R5 is still the perfect camera, as they get overloaded with a few more bells and whistles, like pupil focus area tracking.

It had to happen at some point. Still, a sad feeling. I often regret selling my R5 when I got the R5 II. Well, I also often regret selling my 5D3 when I got the R5. But I guess that is how it goes.

I'm seeing a long relationship with my R5.

kirbic said:

Like the 5D mk IV, the R5 will have a lasting legacy. It's a workhorse. I think so highly of it that I recently bought a second R5 body (used) as a backup body. I expect to have at least one R5 in service for many years to come.

Click to expand...

Here here! The R5 is, in my opinion, the best camera Canon has ever made. The 5D series were workhorses and iconic in their own right, but the R5 delivered both high megapixels & speed in a really well thought out mirrorless system. I am glad Canon moved slowly and methodically with its release (Compared to Sony/Nikon who were ahead of Canon into the mirrorless space but with inferior products). It packs an absolute punch and will be the camera I trust for a long time. Didnt realize they are sub $2k used too, what a steal!

DSB said:

There'd be zero issues having it between the last two elements on the 70-200, without sacrificing compatibility with extenders. The gap is more than enough for a drop in filter.

Click to expand...

Just to illustrate another of your failed technical arguments, you stated unequivocally that a drop in filter would have zero issues fitting in between the last two elements of the 70-200/2.8 Z.



Putting a piece of glass into a 'gap' when Canon designed one of the Nano USM-driven focusing groups to move into that space would constitute an issue. A pretty significant, non-zero issue.

But that's just my own viewpoint. Personally, I like my lenses to have the ability to focus on a subject when I take a picture. Your vast knowledge of optics evidently exceeds that of Canon's own engineers, at least in your own mind. Or maybe you just don't see a need for your lenses to have the ability to focus.

Either way, I'm sure you know best.

Like the 5D mk IV, the R5 will have a lasting legacy. It's a workhorse. I think so highly of it that I recently bought a second R5 body (used) as a backup body. I expect to have at least one R5 in service for many years to come.

DSB said:

There is nobody on this whole forum involved in more flame wars than you and your "arguments" are frequently delivered with asinine levels of arrogance and insults. If you only had the capacity to ask yourself how come everybody here seems to get along pretty well and we can appreciate different views without spewing toxic vitriol - something that's increasingly characteristic of your posts.

I'm pretty sure I blocked you long time ago, so this is probably your new profile.

Click to expand...

I see...you've decided to stop arguing on merit and technical parameters (since you failed at that) and instead have descended to a personal attack. I get it, you made a point for which there was very little logical support, and when the point was refuted with technical arguments against it, you felt trapped. Puerile, but at least you're consistent in that way.

Del Paso said:

The EF version must have been so much better since it didn't need any software corrections.

Click to expand...

Yeah, optical corrections FTW!

neuroanatomist said:

I find pushing an argument that is easily refuted by readily available facts to be insufferable.

Click to expand...

There is nobody on this whole forum involved in more flame wars than you and your "arguments" are frequently delivered with asinine levels of arrogance and insults. If you only had the capacity to ask yourself how come everybody here seems to get along pretty well and we can appreciate different views without spewing toxic vitriol - something that's increasingly characteristic of your posts.

I'm pretty sure I blocked you long time ago, so this is probably your new profile.

Del Paso said:

I see it just like you, but I am still waiting for a 24-70 II. Then, I could sell the 15-35 and add the 14mm to the 24-70 and 70-200 for short trips. The gap between 14 and 24 wouldn't bother me much. One additional (lightweight) lens wouldn't matter much.
Also, I am absolutely convinced that the 14mm will be extremely good! Stlll 3 weeks of waiting and waiting...

Click to expand...

But what about a 10-20mm?

Wow! The VCM series of lenses make an impressive set of primes. I really like they are ,besides this 14mm, all the same size.

Richard CR said:

I didn't even bother comparing the MTF of that lens to the 14/1.4 - I didn't want the EF lens to experience that kind of beat down.

Click to expand...

The EF version must have been so much better since it didn't need any software corrections. Believe me, I had one...
Seriously now: I find it interesting how much UWA and UWA zooms habe been improved in the last 10 years. If I think of the EF 17-40, the EF 2,8/20, even of the not so bad EF 2,8/14 II, progress can be qualified as huge!

Malm said:

several Samyang 14/2.8 lenses: I hate the poor Samyang QC, the so called 'Samyang-lottery' for decentered lenses!

Click to expand...

Agreed! I have bought Canon lenses almost exclusively, the one exception was a Rokinon (Samyang) 14/2.8 that I bought for occasional Astro use. I test all new lenses when I get them, that Roki 14/2.8 is the only one I’ve ever had to exchange for a proper copy.

DSB said:

Oh gosh, that tone you take every time someone has a different opinion than you is so insufferable.

Over and over again you act like the only view that counts is your own and god forbid someone offers an alternative opinion. You'll do all sorts of verbal acrobatics just to make sure you have the last say.



If you know this, then why even go countering my initial claim that it could've been done?

Click to expand...

Interesting that you ignored all the reasoned points and evidence presented, to focus on the tone of that last bit.

You want something that is niche. You present that as reasonable. You reject or ignore explanations as to why things aren't how you want. Would it not be more sensible to try to understand why reality doesn't match your expectations? Or you could just criticise the tone of the people gently trying to lead you to understanding

DSB said:

Oh gosh, that tone you take every time someone has a different opinion than you is so insufferable.

Click to expand...

I find pushing an argument that is easily refuted by readily available facts to be insufferable. When has Canon put a drop-in filter on a lens that takes front filters? Great white lenses typically have them…but not the 100-300/2.8, which takes a 112mm front filter. Why would Canon make a lens longer and heavier to incorporate a feature that the front filter threads make redundant for most use cases? But you keep arguing that they can and should.

DSB said:

Over and over again you act like the only view that counts is your own and god forbid someone offers an alternative opinion. You'll do all sorts of verbal acrobatics just to make sure you have the last say.

Click to expand...

So stating facts that counter your arguments is ‘verbal acrobatics’? Mmmmkay.

DSB said:

If you know this, then why even go countering my initial claim that it could've been done?

Click to expand...

I said ‘probably’. I don’t know for sure. You started with ‘convinced’ then backpedaled to ‘pretty sure’. I do know that if it was possible, the lens wouldn’t have taken its current form. Canon never made a 24-105/2.8 for EF. Probably that design was possible but prohibitive in terms of size, weight and cost – obstacles that were removed by the ability to put lens elements much closer to the sensor with the RF mount. But maybe it just wasn’t possible.

Consider the RF 14/1.4, which also cannot take a front filter and thus would clearly benefit from a drop-in slot. Incidentally, I’d have used it – I already have the CPL, vND and clear filters for the adapter. Canon put lots of glass there, instead. Could they have put a slot in? Probably. Maybe not, there was never a 14/1.4 for a DSLR. But if they had designed it that way, it would have been a much larger and heavier lens.

For a relevant comparison of the tradeoffs, look at the EF 11-24/4 vs the RF 10-20/4. Putting lots of glass close to the sensor precludes a drop-in filter slot but I’ve owned both and the difference in size and weight is very significant (and the latter lens is cheaper, too).

Many things are possible, but not practical. Sigma’s 200-500mm f/2.8 lens. Canon’s 5200mm f/14 lens. Both were made, so clearly they are possible. Doesn’t mean I want to carry them around and use them. But heck, the Sigmonster even has a drop-in filter slot. Sounds like the lens for you!

The point is, even if something is possible, that doesn’t mean doing it is a good idea because lens design choices are always about compromise.

I really like the abstract aspect of the second one. Nicely done, dpc.

benperrin said:

15-35 is a great lens. Perfect for landscape photography but I've also been able to use it for astro on a tracking mount. I went with 95mm because I was sick of having to buy multiple sets that do the same thing. Personally I think you'll love the 15-35. It's very versatile and has great performance.

Click to expand...

Do you also own the 24-70 F2.8 by chance? I suppose the 24mm end of it should give similar results for astro, so it could be my learning ground.

Etnaphele said:

I already use the 82mm filters I have with step up rings on the 70-200 and 82mm seemed the right size to go. It bums me not being able to use the hood on the 70-200 for that reason. Going 95mm is not an option for me but it's actually a good idea - probably with substantial price increase though.

I'm seeing myself going with the 15-35 sooner or later, I tried a variable ND (much thicker than a fixed ND obviously) on one in the shop and the vignetting was minimal + other commenters saying 82mm filters work fine. The appeal for me would be the very good video performance in addition to a heap of other uses.

Click to expand...

15-35 is a great lens. Perfect for landscape photography but I've also been able to use it for astro on a tracking mount. I went with 95mm because I was sick of having to buy multiple sets that do the same thing. Personally I think you'll love the 15-35. It's very versatile and has great performance.