Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[slclick]

I hate to get sucked into the 'photography-is-or-isn't-art' worm hole, but I can't help it:

I think 'art' is used where 'good' is what's meant--as a value statement. In my opinion, anyway,: art is art. Be it good art or be it bad art. Whether you like it or you don't like it. Nobody says, "Ahh now listen to that! That's music!" as if it's not music if it isn't good music.

 

[unfocused]

I think when most EF lenses go it will be like the EF 100mm f/2. It was released in 1991 and remained on Canon's books for over twenty years. It's never gotten a refresh/update. Based on the encoded serial number of one I have, they were manufactured at least as recently as 2015.

At some point recently it was quietly dropped from the catalog. No big announcement telling everyone it was discontinued. It just disappeared from the catalog because it wasn't selling well enough to make another batch worth doing when quantities ran low.

Canon Price Watch shows that that it hasn't been listed as in stock at the Canon USA direct store for the past 39 weeks. B&H deactivated their listing six weeks ago. Adorama deactivated their listing 47 weeks ago.

I get your point, but in this case it may have been discontinued because Canon likely feels it was superseded by the 135mm f2 "L".

 

[SteveC]

Look to the R6 then. That is going to be one HELL of Full Frame camera for what may well turn out to be $1500 price range. My DX2 is the same 20MP and I use if for the bulk of my work. Coming up from where you are, I dont see the R5 being worth the extra (maybe) $2000. You would be much better off investing that $2000 in L glass. What lenses in EF do you have now?

20 MP seems like a huge step down for me from my M6 II.

As for lenses: the 100mm macro (pry it from my cold dead hands), the 100-400 II L, and a smattering of the lower-end primes (85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, and the pancake 40). Those last three, honestly are a bad case of GAS, I've had no real use for them as yet. (I have other lenses, of course, for the M mount; plus some EF-S lenses from Tamron that I bought before I decided I shouldn't be buying EF-S any more; of course they work well on my M6 II.)

I'm still comparatively new to this.

 

[brad-man]

20 MP seems like a huge step down for me from my M6 II.

As for lenses: the 100mm macro (pry it from my cold dead hands), the 100-400 II L, and a smattering of the lower-end primes (85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, and the pancake 40). Those last three, honestly are a bad case of GAS, I've had no real use for them as yet. (I have other lenses, of course, for the M mount; plus some EF-S lenses from Tamron that I bought before I decided I shouldn't be buying EF-S any more; of course they work well on my M6 II.)

I'm still comparatively new to this.

May I suggest an EF 16-35mm f/4L IS ? It will be useful whether you go for the R or not.

 

[koenkooi]

It took 6 years from the onset of EF to the first EF-S lens. Not that history has to repeat itself but there will probably be a couple years at least from the Sept '18 launch of RF to the first RF-S if it happens at all. We're almost at a year and a half.

2003 minus 1987 equal 16, not 6. But that only strengthens your point

 

[SteveC]

May I suggest an EF 16-35mm f/4L IS ? It will be useful whether you go for the R or not.

Not a bad thought. My existing EF-S lenses (the Tamron 10-24 and 18-400, both have gotten use on my M bodies) nominally cover a huge range; replacing it all with full frame L glass is going to be a project (the 100-400 being the start of it).

I'd want an L for the mid range too, someday. The 24-105 F/4 L would fit that bill perfectly. And if I do go Rsomething, there's an R version of that offered as a kit lens (an L lens as a kit lens...!).

The beauty of buying EF lenses in preparation, of course, is I can stick them on the M body with an adapter--I've done tolerably well with the 100-400 on the M6 II.

I'd love to see Canon offer an R kit with the control ring adapter for $100 more than the kit with the basic adapter, but that likely won't happen.

(In fact, sometimes Canon makes me scratch my head as I wonder how they choose what will go into a kit. The M6II for instance could come with an EVF and 15-45mm lens (ugh), or an EVF and some other lens, but no way to buy the camera and EVF and NO lens at a discount. Since I already had the 15-45--it came with the M50--and a Tamron 18-200 M-mount, I had no interest in either of those two lenses. I wasn't alone in thinking this was silly, in fact, the owner of the ten or twelve store chain I shop at says he asked Canon point blank about that choice when they briefed him on the new camera and they simply gave no answer.)

 

[SteveC]

Why do people assume that if Canon decides to do crop-frame R mounts, they will necessarily also come out with crop lenses ("RF-S") for it?

 

[lawny13]

You mean the 5D of yesteryear that is. It's 2020 not 2017. Heck smartphones will be pushing 8k 30fps this year and 108 and 200mp on that Snapdragon 865. Many of us in the tech industry aren't in awe of.

Still 20fps does put any camera in A9 territory. The 5D series was never particularly about sports. But this sort of speed would put it there. It is a massive leap over what the current 5D line can do, same with whatever the A7III and A7RIV can do.

Everyone seems to likening the FF canon MILC to the DSLR lines. All I am saying is why not look at it a little different? This is a camera line built from scratch by canon. There need not be a DSLR line up equivalent, though i am sure people will associate 6, 5, and 1 to the DSLR lines. But end of the day if the R5 and R6 do materialize with these specs I would say that there is nothing at all about them that I would say is associated with the DSLRs other than the number in the names.

 

[SecureGSM]

I 100% agree with everything above.

Where we've disagreed on this thread is the slope of that downward EF usage, as you pointed out.

1) What Canon wants for maximum profit (pull out the rug ASAP, shut down EF aggressively)
2) What Canon can force EF users into doing prematurely (what Canon is probably going to do)
3) What EF users unreasonably want (EF in perpetuity, new EF lenses, etc.)

...are absolutely 3 different things. I simply contend that Canon will be 'impatient, but kind' to the horses that got them here. I still see the EF exodus taking some time for fear of angering its longtime users.

- A

++++ What Canon wants for maximum profit (pull out the rug ASAP, shut down EF aggressively)

A.M.: I am sorry, you are incorrect.this is a short term strategy. this will lead to a destruction of Brand. Canon as a responsible enterprise do not operate like youu have described.

EF mount is now (likely) a SUNSET: i.e. no new development, complete / finalise existing EF related projects, (5D V, 1dx III), etc.), continue providing support for enterprise warranty and support agreements, maintain park of spare parts for next 3 years at least.

 

[PureClassA]

20 MP seems like a huge step down for me from my M6 II.

As for lenses: the 100mm macro (pry it from my cold dead hands), the 100-400 II L, and a smattering of the lower-end primes (85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, and the pancake 40). Those last three, honestly are a bad case of GAS, I've had no real use for them as yet. (I have other lenses, of course, for the M mount; plus some EF-S lenses from Tamron that I bought before I decided I shouldn't be buying EF-S any more; of course they work well on my M6 II.)

I'm still comparatively new to this.

You’re looking at raw pixel count. Don’t. You’re talking about a significant leap going from Crop to Full frame. Pixel density isn't the end all spec. And going from 20 to 24 is not very noticeable unless you are doing more heavy cropping.

What do you commonly shoot? Let’s try and establish what may most benefit you

 

[PureClassA]

EF-M is not aimed at "upper end' anything. It's aimed at non-professional consumers. It's not aimed at 'Canon Rumors' readers.

I wasnt implying At all that they were. I was speaking of the current upper end of the Canon line. The full frame DSLRs, which are at present being slowly phased over to the RF line. And later on, lower priced Crop bodies will absolutely be coming

 

[PureClassA]

I realize you didn't ask me, but I use both frequently. The big plus of EVF is getting a more realistic view of your exposure and also being able to see when shooting in low light. For theater it has been great as it lets me see scenes I might not otherwise be able to see. For sports, the lag and blackout are relatively bothersome, but usable. I don't know that it will ever be truly solved because of the physics of having to send a signal from the sensor to the EVF, but it could be faster for sure.

my experiences have been exactly the same. Really appreciate the versatility and quality of the EVF for most situations, but any fast action stuff is certainly not among them.

 

[ahsanford]

Why do people assume that if Canon decides to do crop-frame R mounts, they will necessarily also come out with crop lenses ("RF-S") for it?

Short answer: Because they may not make a crop RF body just for the 7D camp. Perhaps Canon wants one mount to rule them all.

Longer answer: Folks shooting crop on RF mount bodies face some unpleasant compatibility and focal length options:

• Use EF-S lenses via adaptor -- probably the best option, but Canon is not exactly pumping out much new glass there
• Use larger, more expensive (adapted) EF or (new) RF lenses when all they need is the center crop portion of those lenses; if you only shoot crop, you're overpaying for heavier lenses and parts of the FF you will never use.
• If you refuse to use an adaptor and need a first party UWA zoom option, the crop hoses you. $2699 or nothing for an 11-24L (no one will do that).

FF lenses are more expensive for a host of reasons, but the need to cover a FF image circle with larger optical elements and larger housings is a big part of that.

So Canon aims to migrate all crop users to RF eventually, or just the very specific birding/wildlifing 7D users. The former demands RF-S lenses for that migration to be successful. The latter does not (they likely shoot full EF today and wouldn't mind the burden of FF glass like the general userbase might).

- A

 

[Ozarker]

So, what do you people think of the R5 specs?

 

[Michael Clark]

I get your point, but in this case it may have been discontinued because Canon likely feels it was superseded by the 135mm f2 "L".

Well then, it only took 23 years for them to get around to doing it from the time the EF 135mm f/2 L was introduced in 1996 to when the EF 100mm f/2 was discontinued in 2019...

 

[Michael Clark]

++++ What Canon wants for maximum profit (pull out the rug ASAP, shut down EF aggressively)

A.M.: I am sorry, you are incorrect.this is a short term strategy. this will lead to a destruction of Brand. Canon as a responsible enterprise do not operate like youu have described.

EF mount is now (likely) a SUNSET: i.e. no new development, complete / finalise existing EF related projects, (5D V, 1dx III), etc.), continue providing support for enterprise warranty and support agreements, maintain park of spare parts for next 3 years at least.

Canon has typically supported lenses for at least seven years after they've been discontinued. There have been a few rare cases where they ran out of repair parts for very low volume lenses earlier than that, but it's the exception, not the rule.

 

[Michael Clark]

(In fact, sometimes Canon makes me scratch my head as I wonder how they choose what will go into a kit. The M6II for instance could come with an EVF and 15-45mm lens (ugh), or an EVF and some other lens, but no way to buy the camera and EVF and NO lens at a discount. Since I already had the 15-45--it came with the M50--and a Tamron 18-200 M-mount, I had no interest in either of those two lenses. I wasn't alone in thinking this was silly, in fact, the owner of the ten or twelve store chain I shop at says he asked Canon point blank about that choice when they briefed him on the new camera and they simply gave no answer.)

Which just goes to show that Canon considers the EF-M system a "one and done" purchase for its buyers.

 

[jam05]

Still 20fps does put any camera in A9 territory. The 5D series was never particularly about sports. But this sort of speed would put it there. It is a massive leap over what the current 5D line can do, same with whatever the A7III and A7RIV can do.

Everyone seems to likening the FF canon MILC to the DSLR lines. All I am saying is why not look at it a little different? This is a camera line built from scratch by canon. There need not be a DSLR line up equivalent, though i am sure people will associate 6, 5, and 1 to the DSLR lines. But end of the day if the R5 and R6 do materialize with these specs I would say that there is nothing at all about them that I would say is associated with the DSLRs other than the number in the names.

Actually its being remorted and obviously noted elsewhere (fstoppers) the R5 replaces the 5dmk4 and R6 replaces the 6D. a Note adorama is requesting used 5dmk4 this week. expect resale prices to drop next week. Already sold my 5D

 

[jam05]

Actually its being remorted and obviously noted elsewhere (fstoppers) the R5 replaces the 5dmk4 and R6 replaces the 6D. a Note adorama is requesting used 5dmk4 this week. expect resale prices to drop next week. Already sold my 5D

forgive my typing errors.

 

[Aaron D]

OK the moderators are going to shut me down for going wildly off-topic--is that a Campy crankset in your icon thing?