I've been saving up to purchase a mirrorless camera, but I only shoot stills. Would the R5 be worth the money or is there a full-frame professional mirrorless in the pipeline that's setup more for stills
EOS R5
- Thread starter James Long
- Start date
My R is stills only. Fantastic camera! I completely ignore the video features. I would imagine one could also have an R5 as stills only.
How you setup the camera is up to you. Shooting video or not is your choice. I cannot think of any mirrorless camera that does not also shoot video.
Upvote
0
All the best cameras do stills and do video as well. The 5 series cameras were originally conceived as tools for Wedding Photographers and still serve that purpose, but they take fine photos of other than weddings. If you are like me and don't do video, just don't bother to switch to it. Unless you use it regularly, you won't see a easy way to use the video.
Upvote
0
Once the high resolution R comes, we will likely see the return of some form of crop or line skipping, unless Canon is still holding back with the R5 and actually has the capability of reading and downscaling what seems to become a 80+ MP sensor.
So that will likely be a camera that has a lesser general appeal for video users compared to the R5.
But the whole idea that a mirrorless camera with great video specs somehow being a disadvantage for stills only shooters is simply flawed.
In a mirrorless camera, everything depends on the ability read and process data from the sensor as quickly as possible. Because the sensor is the source of AF and metering information, tracking information and even the viewfinder content. Those are all aspects that are part of both video and stills. If you a camera was unable to produce 8K 30p 12-bit RAW with AF, it would also be unable to do 45 MP 20 FPS 12-bit Stills with the e shutter. Those are basically the same thing.
Putting a H.265 encoder in the camera is actually something that could be dropped and not affect the stills capability. But it would reduce market appeal and lessen the demand. If that alone would actually safe enough cost to make the camera cheaper despite smaller sales, why is every low end DSLR still equipped with video functionality? In those bodies, that feature makes the least amount of sense, as it doesn't work well anymore for bodies without DPAF and is not necessary for stills shooting at all. Simple. It increases demand to a degree that offsets the cost. There are no downside to having a mirrorless camera that is an absolute beast and using it only for video.
So that will likely be a camera that has a lesser general appeal for video users compared to the R5.
But the whole idea that a mirrorless camera with great video specs somehow being a disadvantage for stills only shooters is simply flawed.
In a mirrorless camera, everything depends on the ability read and process data from the sensor as quickly as possible. Because the sensor is the source of AF and metering information, tracking information and even the viewfinder content. Those are all aspects that are part of both video and stills. If you a camera was unable to produce 8K 30p 12-bit RAW with AF, it would also be unable to do 45 MP 20 FPS 12-bit Stills with the e shutter. Those are basically the same thing.
Putting a H.265 encoder in the camera is actually something that could be dropped and not affect the stills capability. But it would reduce market appeal and lessen the demand. If that alone would actually safe enough cost to make the camera cheaper despite smaller sales, why is every low end DSLR still equipped with video functionality? In those bodies, that feature makes the least amount of sense, as it doesn't work well anymore for bodies without DPAF and is not necessary for stills shooting at all. Simple. It increases demand to a degree that offsets the cost. There are no downside to having a mirrorless camera that is an absolute beast and using it only for video.
Upvote
0
I completely agree with you, but I do have to point out that video compression does serve still functionality: remote shooting. I find it very useful to see a live view on my phone when trying to wrangle my kids for a group picture with myself in it. Doing that uncompressed over the underpowered in-camera wifi would be a no-go.
Upvote
0
Just knowing you want a full frame mirrorless isn't enough information to give you a good answer. The R5 will likely be a tremendous camera for stills. But do you need about 45 megapixels? Is it worth the (still unknown) price?
I have the EOS R which as an upgrade from my 6D. I didn't buy it for video but it works well enough. I bought it for stills. and I'm happy with it. Image quality is very similar to the 5D Mark IV. It's not as good as that camera in some ways but not features that I necessarily need. I shoot mostly landscapes not sports/action or weddings. I don't need two card slots for example.
So...if you want to spend less than $2,000 buy the EOS R. If you want to spend probably $3,500 and need more than 30 megapixels then maybe the EOS R5 is the right choice.
Or maybe the R6 will be a better option for you but we don't know the full specs yet.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
