There will not be an EOS 5D Mark V [CR2]

[Danglin52]

Have fun taking pictures of anything that moves quickly/erratically with your mirrorless cameras (GIF is from an R5).

I'll be over here patiently waiting for a 5DV.

View attachment 191456

I think you are going to have a really long wait.

This video may be a little more informative than yours. Just skip over the YouTube add after the first few seconds.


Definitely a marketing spin, but he seems to be pretty excited based on actually shooting the camera. There is also a video form Beck in Africa shooting wildlife. Hopefully, I will have the camera at the end of next week and be able to judge for myself if the heat in Atlanta allows me to photograph my friends agility/disc dogs. Lots of speed and erratic motion with obstacles.

 

[David - Sydney]

For a new 5DV to sell well, it would need to be released in late 2021 to allow all the R5 people to migrate if they were going to. It would need to include:
- all the R5 bits (excluding EVF)
- the AF system from the 1DXII
- extended video recording limits due to bigger/better heat dissipation
The price will be higher than the R5 to compensate for the extra R&D and less sales. LP-3NH battery will give even more battery life for the OVF shooting

The ergonomics is the question for me....
- A flippy screen will cost a lot to redesign the 5Div so it may not be included and may be perceived as less rugged. Would this stop new buyers?
- Adding the fancy AF-on button from the 1DXIII could offset a flippy screen option and should be a simpler swap though that would mean more firmware/circuitry to include/test.

 

[David - Sydney]

For the control ring (either on RF lens or adaptor), what would you use it for as the R5 has 3 wheels now? Aperture, ISO, shutter speed and exposure compensation?

 

[navastronia]

For a new 5DV to sell well, it would need to be released in late 2021 to allow all the R5 people to migrate if they were going to. It would need to include:
- all the R5 bits (excluding EVF)
- the AF system from the 1DXII
- extended video recording limits due to bigger/better heat dissipation
The price will be higher than the R5 to compensate for the extra R&D and less sales. LP-3NH battery will give even more battery life for the OVF shooting

This is gonna sound cynical, because it is, but I don't think Canon need to do much more than slap "5D Mark V" on a body to sell many thousands of them.

As long as it has an OVF and good battery life, it will sell, innovation be damned.

 

[degos]

The market made the decision.

We won't be able to infer that until two or three years from now.

Canon doesn't release sales figures for individual models. We don't know how R5 were pre-ordered, it could have been 10,000 or a million. We don't know how that compares to 5D4 pre-sales.

But we do know that the majority of Canon users have not ordered an R5.

 

[Ozarker]

We won't be able to infer that until two or three years from now.

Canon doesn't release sales figures for individual models. We don't know how R5 were pre-ordered, it could have been 10,000 or a million. We don't know how that compares to 5D4 pre-sales.

But we do know that the majority of Canon users have not ordered an R5.

To be fair, we also know the majority of Canon users have not ordered a 5D Mark IV or 1DX Mark III either. The majority of buyers are at the low end and not FF. Zero have ordered a 5D Mark V. It doesn't exist. Canon has (if the rumor is true) decided there will be no 5D Mark V. Is there a market for one? At this moment there obviously is... on this forum at least. Is it a big enough market for Canon to spend the money to build one? Canon says no, and gives it the ax. On the other hand, Canon might just decide to replace it with something else. However, it won't be labeled a 5D Mark V.

 

[Michael Clark]

Strategy fits in with the market that Canon is focusing on (excuse the pun) - people that don't use the kit to make a living but have deep pockets. Makes commercial sense I guess but it's not good for the most of the guys still eking out a living shooting. Budgets are tight and the last thing we can do with is an unnecessary complete kit switch for what is in reality very little gain (for me complete silent shooting would be handy sometimes) and loss in some departments (digital viewfinder, battery drain and I don't care for the slight reduction in size). I only know 2 professionals that use mirrorless and they were both 'sponsored' to do so!! I'm 50 and hoping for another 15 years shooting - wonder if I can get there with a 5DIV!!!!!

In the current economy, though, upgrading a 5D Mark IV with plenty of life still left in it to a new 5D Mark V doesn't make much sense, either, for many of those still struggling to make a living shooting.

 

[Michael Clark]

I had only ever had DSLR's and went straight from a 7D mkII to the EOSR. The smaller body and weight loss was great. The sacrifice was the slow FPS but overall an easy move. with the R5 rectifying the FPS issue I'm a happy man, when I get the R5 delivered that is.

I never got to own or use a 5DIV but everyone I know swears by them as solid workhorses. I can understand the sadness if there is no newer version but as they say, time stands still for no man / woman lol. Hopefully the R5 will be the replacement and workhorse everyone wants it to be but you can always use it as a hand warmer in winter if you like shooting 8k a lot, allegedly.

Though it may well be that the R5 is just as tough as the 5D Mark IV, many of us old-timers still associate "large and heavy" with "tough" and "compact and light" with "not quite as tough."

 

[Michael Clark]

Look at the sales figures for Interchangeable Lens 35mm sensor cameras. Down, down, down and we will be fortunate if Canon has an R series line in the next five years, let alone a 5d series.

Most of that loss is in the entry level APS-C part of the market, which has by far the biggest numbers to lose. FF DSLRs (or even x0D and 7-series bodies) never sold in near the same numbers as Rebels.

 

[Michael Clark]

Obvious news for anyone that paid attention how much effort Canon put into RF ranging from lenses to bodies.

This one is going down like FD to EF

Not even close.

EF lenses are easily adaptable to RF bodies with no loss of functionality.

FD lenses were non-compatible with EOS bodies, even with an adapter with optics that was essentially also a TC, in so many ways.

 

[Michael Clark]

But in a tighter market, selling fewer cameras, that incremental cost is probably the entire profit margin of the R5.

If you're Canon, what secures your future better. Producing two cameras that are functionally the same spec wise, but in different bodies, requiring two production and assembly lines or the efficiencies of scale of just one? Especially when that one product pushes people to purchase new lenses as well.

It matters not what that incremental cost is compared to the profit margin of the R5.

What Canon would consider is what that incremental cost would be in relation to the entire profit margin of the 5D Mark V.
They'd also look at how many sales of R5 bodies they would lose for the number of 5D Mark V bodies they would sell.

Why produce a camera you'll barely make any money on when most of the sales you won't make by not producing it will be replaced by sales of a product you already make?

 

[Michael Clark]

How well does EF glass "actually" perform on an R5?

As well as or better than on a 5-series DSLR. There's no loss of lens functionality when using EF lenses on even the R and RP. With IBIS in the R5/R6, there is potential for enhanced functionality when using an EF lens on an R5/R6 compared to using the same lens on a 5D Mark IV.

 

[JoTomOz]

This decision probably has a lot to do with maintaining the lens library(ies). Sure, you could make a dslr version of the R5 but that has your customers thinking...

how are the lenses for this dslr camera? Are they going to buy 20-30 year old optical designs (new?) to go with these cameras? Or buy Third party(sigma art) or second hand instead?

So if you need to keep producing EF lenses to go with the new dslrs, can you afford to maintain two huge lens lines? Are there enough dslr holdouts to recoup the r&d on those new EF lenses? And as a business they’ve just spent big bucks developing RF lenses for the FF mirrorless cameras.

in a camera market that is on the decline overall, I think they needed to choose. Sure, they may make another FF dslr, but they are probably looking at Sony’s growth and didn’t want to miss the boat.

 

[hollybush]

Why would a person switch their entire system - not just body, lenses and flashes and everything else - just to avoid Canon mirrorless?

I'd do it to avoid the extra control wheel on the RF lenses. I've had such a thing on one of my film systems and I don't want to ever go there again.

This is really a special case of me not liking the RF lens system at all. It seems to be mainly pitched towards wedding photographers, which I am not, and so far there isn't a single lens in the system I like. The new f/11 long lenses with non-rotating tripod mounts were the last straw. It may well be Canon know their market, and their choices are based on a hard-nosed calculation that people like me have fairly complete systems and aren't potential customers anyway.

Meanwhile, the Sony A9 and some of their lenses beckon, including one in particular not available in either EF or RF mount.

I find the often-heard claims that Canon bodies are easier to hold or use very odd. I've always considered Canon to be hopeless at industrial design. I loathed my 5-series from the day I bought it until I eventually replaced it by a pair of 1-series, which I've come to tolerate. So I certainly won't be weeping if the 5-series is discontinued. Neither would I be predisposed to a Canon mirrorless over other brands. To make me use an adapter for my EF lenses on the R5 is therefore just inviting me to switch.

The industrial design of the EF lenses is OK, even if stylistically they look like they've time-travelled from 1992, but the addition of the control wheel indicates that the bad design is now leaking out from the bodies. See also that stupid hatch in the 100–400mm II hood.

(As for what I'd actually *buy*, it will boil down to realism. The R5 fills a couple of specific gaps in my system, and I can see myself buying it for that, even though I wouldn't use the camera as a main body. I'd buy the plain adaptor without the ring of unconfidence, of course. I could plug one of those gaps with the 1Dx Mk III, but it's too expensive for what it is and that leaves the other gap sitting there waiting for a camera from another brand. Or I might stay where I am.)

 

[SecureGSM]

Have fun taking pictures of anything that moves quickly/erratically with your mirrorless cameras (GIF is from an R5).

I'll be over here patiently waiting for a 5DV.

View attachment 191456

interesting.... with IBIS on? Any other known parameters and conditions?

 

[Michael Clark]

I think if a 5D5 was made with some sensor improvement AND a larger focus point spread, that a lot of people would buy it. ...

But the vast majority of those 5D Mark V sales would instead eventually be R5 sales if the 5D Mark V is not made. So Canon would have to sell enough 5D Mark V bodies over and above the number of R5 bodies they do not sell because the 5D Mark V body is available in order to recover the additional investment of bringing the 5D Mark V to market.

Put it in simple, round numbers I'm totally pulling out of my butt:

Let's say the fixed cost of bringing a 5D Mark V to market is 100,000,000 dollars.

Let's say the wholesale price for the 5D Mark V less the per unit manufacturing, warranty reserve cost, and delivery (to retail dealers) cost of the 5D Mark V is $500.

Canon would need to sell 200,000 more 5D Mark V bodies than the number of R5 sales they do not make due to offering the 5D Mark V just to break even on the 5D Mark V.

If Canon sells 800,000 5D Mark V bodies they make $300M in profit on the 5D Mark V. ($400M on a per unit basis less the $100M initial cost)

But if Canon loses 700,000 R5 sales because that many folks that would have otherwise bought an R5 instead of an 5D Mark V, then they have lost the profit they would have made on those 700,000 R5 sales.

Let's assume the per unit cost of the R5 allows for $700 net profit on each unit.

The $300M profit from selling 800,000 5D Mark V bodies is more than offset by the $490M profit they did not make on the 700,000 R5 bodies they would otherwise have sold.

So investing $100M in producing a 5D Mark V results in $190M less in total profits for the company, even though they sold 100K more camera bodies.

 

[Michael Clark]

And you are providing more weight to your own opinion (which appears to be wishful thinking), with no direct knowledge or access to those who do, than those of this site. That's ridiculous.

And apparently your own self opinion depends on criticizing someone else about how wrong their opinion is when it disagrees with yours.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm not butt hurt or screaming into a pillow or anything. My next camera will be mirrorless, personally.

But I am not one of the army of working professionals at weddings toting a 5D today. I think saying goodbye to that brand that quickly would be a mistake, but I don't have Canon's internal numbers to say 'See, look how many there are!'.

- A

On the other hand, how many of those working professionals are at weddings toting a 5D this summer?

How many extra years will it be, due to the disruption in their business on account of the allout from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, before they could afford, from a business cost/benefit point of view, to upgrade from their current 5D Mark IV to a 5D Mark V?

Will many of them or even most of them even survive as a business at all? Will the way we have done high-end weddings in the past ever look like that again?

 

[hollybush]

But the vast majority of those 5D Mark V sales would instead eventually be R5 sales if the 5D Mark V is not made.

I think this assumption, which underlies many of the posts in this thread, is false. My post a couple above yours ran through the reasons it isn't true for me.

 

[Michael Clark]

But this presumes that:

1) 5D users won't leave to another company that is still putting out modern SLRs.

2) Taking away mirrors will successfully prod photographers into going mirrorless. Some folks may just fold their arms and keep shooting with their 5D4s.

I"m not saying killing off the 5D line won't work -- it's inevitable, of course. But I just thought we'd get one more body before they did it. It's brazen to the point of arrogance for Canon to say '5D users want 45 x 20, IBIS and a tilty-flippy badly enough that they will pitch the mirror to get it rather than leave us altogether.'

...and Canon is many things, but they are neither cocky nor abrupt. Which means R5 pre-sales are possibly through the roof, and now they have some data-driven confidence that they can telegraph to us that the 5D's days are numbered.

- A

What company would that be? Nikon's DSLRs aren't all that "modern" unless you use "E" lenses - which for the most part are just as eye watering expensive as RF lenses - instead of "G" or earlier lenses with mechanical aperture linkages.
Pentax? Seriously?

Again, what other company is making DSLRs with 45MP x 20 fps?
What other company is making DSLRs with 8K video?