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

[keetyUK]

why is it then that movies are never shown at such high frame rates but usually well below 60 Hz, if there's so much difference even after passing 60 Hz?

Because people are trained to watch at 24fps. Look at the fallout the Hobbit films received for shooting at 60fps... it looks hyper real and people dont like it.

Anyone saying there isnt a difference between 60hz and 120hz has clearly never seen them side by side, its night and day difference.

Tom Cruise was even part of a push to get people to turn off motion smoothing (interpolate 24fps films up to 60) because it interfered with how the movie makers wanted the films to look

 

[Quarkcharmed]

This is completely false. The difference between 60fps and 120fps is night and day, ask any PC gamer.

60fps and 120fps of what, your monitor refresh rate or what a game can deliver?
If the game delivers say 120fps consistently, your perception is limited by the monitor refresh rate, but more by biology and how human eye retina works. So you'll see a huge difference between 30fps and 60fps, but much less of that between 60 and 120.

Also 120 fps give less input lag than 60 that's why hardcore gamers like it.

However when the game internal frame rate is irregular (which happens a lot), 120fps smooth out the irregularities better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

But it's not the case for the photo camera: there's no irregularities/ hiccups in the processing pipeline as it has nothing else to do, just that job. Except after pressing the shutter button.

 

[mjg79]

It's a fascinating debate and good conversation in this thread.

I have both a 5DIV and the R and like them both. I am hoping for a 5DV - I would prefer something along the lines of the Sony A99II, ie smaller and with the benefits of mirrorless tech but retaining the deeper mount for ergonomics with longer glass but would settle for essentially a 5DIV but with the new R5 sensor and IBIS, that shouldn't cost Canon a lot to do, but whether they want to compete with themselves I don't know. Who can deny that from their point of view the best thing would be if we all go out and buy into R system and all new glass?

My issue with mirrorless is really that it seems to suit smaller lenses, 1.8 primes, manual focus glass etc and especially wide angles. With such lenses, no question about it, it's smaller, lighter, higher quality. The little RF 35/1.8 on my R is a great kit. In the Sony world lenses like the 24GM and 16-35 GM, quality control issues aside, are smaller, lighter and better than SLR equivalents. And lenses like the Loxia glass really offer smaller high quality packages.

However with the larger aperture 2.8 zooms and 1.2/1.4 primes (longer than 24mm) it has been so far a different story - not just with Canon but Sony too. Typically fast mirrorless 50s are bigger and heavier than SLR ones. So to give a flavour of where I am, I use the EF 85/1.4 IS L a lot on my 5D. I've tried the RF 85/1.2 on the R. The RF lens is better, the lack of chromatic aberrations at 1.2 is astounding. But it's unpleasant to hold and use simply because of the sheer physics of the lens. I've adapted my 85IS to my R and it's nice but not as balanced as on a 5D. By contrast the 85 on a 5D is a perfectly balanced joy to use. I find the same with my EF 24-70/2.8L II - just perfect. I have tried the RF 24-70 2.8L. Optically I couldn't see much difference though the IS is nice but again in terms of ergonomics it wasn't as nicely balanced on the R.

Maybe the R5 will be different with a deeper grip and better ergonomics? I don't know. Ultimately you can't change physics. I have no intention of selling my EF 24-70 2.8L II so my choice in the future will be either using it adapted or using it on a future 5DV. I imagine quite a few others are in a similar boat as I know many here have huge EF lens collections. I remain sceptical as to whether Canon won't offer one last hurrah of a 5D at some point as I think quite a few people would buy it but who knows. If they brought out a radical update to the 5D along the lines of the Sony A99II it would be a day one pre-order from me.

 

[navastronia]

It was inevitable that Canon would not introduce a 5DV while the R5 is fresh. Canon obviously want to milk the mirrorless RF mount as much as they can, I just hope they are going to throw Sony a few quid for reinvigorating a mature ILC market with the "mirrorless" concept.

The title of this thread is at odds with Canon going on record as stating that they are continuing to support and develop the EF mount going forwards. Given what Canon have already published I think this rumour should have read " There will not be a 5DV for a while" And that's not at all surprising.

The 5DIV is more than capable, pretty future proof, and probably not going to be under brand rivalry pressure to update as no doubt Nikon will be acting in the same way.

Canon will know that once people by the R series they will get the urge to buy dedicated RF lenses eventually, and so they can resell lenses that are now sat in a very mature and stagnating market, all over again. Smart business move ! Over the next two years the market will decide when or whether we get a 5DV IMHO.

This follows, except that Canon have updated the 5D line every 3-4 years since it began in 2005. The Mark IV came out in 2016. Now it's 2020, and we have no Mark IV, but we do have an R5. This implies that there is no Mark V coming.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Anyone saying there isnt a difference between 60hz and 120hz has clearly never seen them side by side, its night and day difference.

Tom Cruise was even part of a push to get people to turn off motion smoothing (interpolate 24fps films up to 60) because it interfered with how the movie makers wanted the films to look

Jumping from 24 to 60 is quite noticeable in movies. From 60 to 120 - not really.

 

[Mark3794]

More DSLRs: Canon is doomed.
No more DSLRs: Canon is more doomed.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

This implies that there is no Mark V coming.

... in 2020

 

[navastronia]

... in 2020

I mean . . . yeah, but like . . .

 

[chik0240]

You may go to Leica because the RF is too expensive?!!

most likely sigma, I mean for body choice of favour alone L mount seems promising and sigma got a proper EF adapter, personally I love the foveon colour a alot

 

[AccipiterQ]

From the CFO's point of view, it makes sense for Canon.

But, the 5d 4 is the best digital camera I have ever owned, I often take the 5d for an assignment over the 1dx 2 (NHL, MLS, CFL games etc aside).
I have 2x 1dx 2, and I have ordered a R5. Who knows, maybe the auto focus is so good that I will start using the R5 at hockey and football games. Will the legacy 400 2.8 and 300 2.8 be as fast on the R5 as an RF lens? So many unknowns still.
But, it is too soon to kill the line off, it is Canon's "anchor tenant" so to speak. They should make a 5d mk 5 to ease the transition.

Why do you prefer the 5D4 over the 1DX2? Just curious

 

[YuengLinger]

They should make a 5d mk 5 to ease the transition.

They DID! Just without the mirror.

 

[Eclipsed]

Umm, didn't Canon's last film camera have an eighteen year production run?

Umm, film doesn't obsolete itself every three to five years the way digital technology always has.

 

[AEWest]

Because your assessment of the two systems isn't shared by everyone? EF isn't obsolete, your EF lenses will still work just as well if and when you get an RF camera. A non-exhaustive list: EF still offers loads of lenses that don't exist in RF (yet or perhaps ever). Some people value things like OVF over other considerations. Some people won't benefit from the new AF system (even if it were objectively better), because they shoot MF, or their use cases are already adequately covered. Some people don't like change.

But why would you pay MORE for a camera that could only take EF lenses, has inferior AF, and no IBIS?

The post I quoted said that the new DSLR would cost more than the R5. Even if I wanted a DSLR, the limitations means to me that the camera should cost less than the mirrorless, not more.

 

[mjg79]

But why would you pay MORE for a camera that could only take EF lenses, has inferior AF, and no IBIS?

The post I quoted said that the new DSLR would cost more than the R5. Even if I wanted a DSLR, the limitations means to me that the camera should cost less than the mirrorless, not more.

If for example you like using a fast 85mm lens, an EF mount camera is in my opinion miles better in terms of ergonomics. A 5D with the EF 85L IS is much, much nicer to hold and use for prolonged periods than the R with the RF 85/1.2 - I've used both, and for general photography for fun the EF mount would win every time in terms of ergonomics. Now the RF lens is sharper and better corrected, but inevitably the combination is front heavy. Some people work well with that, holding the lens, others prefer the camera and lens more balanced.

I'm not generally bashing mirrorless. For use with a 1.8 or 2.8 prime? For use with lenses 24mm and wider? For use with small manual focus glass? The R is better, indeed makes things possible an SLR can't. But a fast 50 or 85? An 85/1.4? A 24-70/2.8? For those the EF mount is often ergonomically superior because the centre of balance is further forward, towards the middle of the combination. So far anyway that seems to be the case with Sony and Canon lenses, nobody has yet made a 1.4 or 1.2 35, 50 or 85 that didn't end up being big and heavy on mirrorless. 24mm is a different story. 16-35 different. 1.8 is different. But the Sony 50/1.4 and Canon 50/1.2, both excellent lenses are quite awkward, in my view anyway and I've tried both and own the Canon, because the lens gets so big and the camera is thin and the centre of balance is so far forward.

I imagine there are other reasons others would have but that's a large part of the reason I would like a 5DV to keep using some of my EF lenses with a future camera.

 

[AEWest]

If for example you like using a fast 85mm lens, an EF mount camera is in my opinion miles better in terms of ergonomics. A 5D with the EF 85L IS is much, much nicer to hold and use for prolonged periods than the R with the RF 85/1.2 - I've used both, and for general photography for fun the EF mount would win every time in terms of ergonomics. Now the RF lens is sharper and better corrected, but inevitably the combination is front heavy. Some people work well with that, holding the lens, others prefer the camera and lens more balanced.

I'm not generally bashing mirrorless. For use with a 1.8 or 2.8 prime? For use with lenses 24mm and wider? For use with small manual focus glass? The R is better, indeed makes things possible an SLR can't. But a fast 50 or 85? An 85/1.4? A 24-70/2.8? For those the EF mount is often ergonomically superior because the centre of balance is further forward, towards the middle of the combination. So far anyway that seems to be the case with Sony and Canon lenses, nobody has yet made a 1.4 or 1.2 35, 50 or 85 that didn't end up being big and heavy on mirrorless. 24mm is a different story. 16-35 different. 1.8 is different. But the Sony 50/1.4 and Canon 50/1.2, both excellent lenses are quite awkward, in my view anyway and I've tried both and own the Canon, because the lens gets so big and the camera is thin and the centre of balance is so far forward.

I imagine there are other reasons others would have but that's a large part of the reason I would like a 5DV to keep using some of my EF lenses with a future camera.

You raise good points. But would you pay a premium for the DSLR vs mirrorless given its other limitations?

 

[unfocused]

I agree with most of your post, but I'd just whisper here: the ergonomics of a big body, and top-notch durability.

And a 20 mp sensor.

 

[Bert63]

Aren't pro PC gamers asking for way faster than even that with input lag, monitor lag, etc.? Why would wildlifers be any different? Wouldn't some want to nail the decisive moment and not necessarily rely on having the machine gun going throughout a window of possible activity?

I hear you, though, I personally don't need some absurd 300 Hz refresh to do what I do... but some folks may be chasing a more perfectly realtime experience.

- A

Me being a huge PC nerd as well, I can confirm. I think a lot of it is overblown in the PC world and just like everything else - personal preference and potential bragging rights.

I'm a 32" 4K 60hz guy myself. lol

 

[RunAndGun]

Quarkcharmed, that might work for your concerts, but the problem with EVF lag is more about
1) the cumulative delay
2) after a series of burst shots
3) on a moving target

You need all three of those factors to see the problem. It's all fine until your viewfinder shows you the bird in the center of the frame, while the actual recorded image shows just a bill off to the left of the frame. My hope is that this short delay makes it work.

Your figure of 8.3 ms isn't the lag, but rather is the time between refreshes of the monitor in the EVF. There is another delay, which is the processing time it takes to get the image from the sensor to the EVF. We don't know what that figure is yet on the R5. If it is less than 8.3 ms, then you will not have a cumulatively larger lag in the EVF, and all is good. Traditionally, though, that has not been the case. Even with the A9II, there is enough lag so that if you have a 20fps burst for a few seconds, the last shots will be significantly behind a fast moving subject.

Because the A9II is a beast when it comes to read-out (stacked sensor and a few other innovative things), I'm not optimistic the R5 will be better than the Sony in this one feature. Hope to be wrong. I have been on other elements where I've underestimated this body. -tig

Granted, I have not shot with any of these mirrorless cams yet, but we’ve been shooting TV with EVF’s forever and digital cinema for like two decades. All of the fast moving, tight shots from sporting events that you’re watching on TV are from cameras with EVF’s. All of the stuff from NFL Films for probably the last five years has been digital, meaning EVF’s. I think some may be making a mountain out of a mole hill over the viewfinders.

 

[Bert63]

provide us with an overlap between similarly spec'd DSLR and mirrorless cameras

You could make that argument for the rest of your life - at what point do you stop?

When the R9 comes out with a 182MP noiseless sensor and 150 FPS you could say the same thing then. Just one more 'overlap'...

 

[unfocused]

Granted, I have not shot with any of these mirrorless cams yet, but we’ve been shooting TV with EVF’s forever and digital cinema for like two decades. All of the fast moving, tight shots from sporting events that you’re watching on TV are from cameras with EVF’s. All of the stuff from NFL Films for probably the last five years has been digital, meaning EVF’s. I think some may be making a mountain out of a mole hill over the viewfinders.

Stills vs. Video. Two different animals. For video you need a viewfinder that allows you to follow the action, but stopping that action is irrelevant. For stills, you need a viewfinder that lets you stop the action. Any lag time between what you see and what is happening in the viewfinder can cause you to miss the peak of action.

Very simple portrait example: Ballplayer standing in front of the camera tossing the ball in the air and catching it with their glove. With video, you just record the whole sequence. With stills you need to watch to see when the ball hits the peak and snap the shot, any lag or delay and you miss the shot.