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

[Bert63]

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

Looks like the R5 tracked it pretty well... Especially considering the target is pretty much out of range for a good image - it definitely doesn't fill the frame.

I shoot BIFs with my EOS-R all the time.

 

[Bert63]

Well, I guess I will just keep shooting with my 5DIV. Im not too interested in an R series body. If I decide to try one, I can always rent one first. Im not a fan of battery dependent EVFs, especially when you must make sure the camera is on. Lots of shots to be missed with that.

What kind of shots would you be missing?

This coming from a 5D4 and EOS-R shooter.

When I'm out shooting, my camera is always on. Even in the car as I'm driving down the road, it's on.

When I see a bird/subject I want to take a picture of, I tap the trigger on my EOS-R as I'm bringing the camera up to my eye - my hand is always on the grip and my trigger finger is always on the button. By the time I get my eye on the EVF the screen is awake and ready to go. When I'm stalking a bird/subject, I tap the button every few seconds to make sure she's not sleeping and ready to go.

No problems. Any shots I miss is because I suck.

 

[slclick]

$1999 New USA warranty via CPW. A few weeks ago it was under $1800 and probably will be again.

regardless, dirt cheap, HOWEVER, not nearly as good as a Z5

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Nyquist is about then information needed to accurately reconstruct a band limited analog signal. And most of those gaming monitors are variable refresh now anyways.

Yeah it's not fully applicable but as an illustration of why high-frequency monitors may provide a better gaming experience - the point was that 120-hz monitors may look better in games but doesn't have to be related to human perception and ability to distinguish 60 vs 120Hz.

Anyways, the human eye can recognize shapes flashed at 1/200th of a second. Stop thinking of the brain/human perception like a computer—it’s way more complicated. A 120fps 6mp EVF is not at human perception limits.

The human eye can also recognise separate photons in the dark, under certain conditions. But recognising short flashes isn't the same as telling 60 vs 120Hz apart - exactly because human perception isn't the same as digital signal processing (although there are many similarities).
Showing a sequence of still frames in computer games isn't the same as showing frames captured in camera.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

The EVF refresh rate is no guarantee of either throughput or latency. If I had to guess...

1. Most EVFs can probably achieve a throughput equal to their advertised refresh in daylight when the camera is not shooting.
2. Probably all of them experience a severe drop in throughput in low light.
3. Probably no EVFs have a latency equal to their advertised refresh.

That would apply to cases/systems where the signal is arbitrary (4ex coming from different games/applications on PC) and display is a universal device.
In cameras with EVF, the principles of signal processing are similar, but the whole thing is treated as a single device. When they advertise refresh rate of EVFs at 120fps, users don't expect the actual captures to be taken at 1fps and a latency of 0.5s. For such a device as camera, the latency is processing time, after the captured image is processed, the EVF switches the buffer and displays the result immediately.
In low light the EVF may be better than OVF, the actual frame rate may drop because of longer exposures, but you'll see more detail than when using an OVF.

Taking a photograph...especially with a mechanical shutter...introduces a very significant 'bubble' into this pipeline. How the system handles this bubble will depend on latency. But if you see an image instead of a black out then it involves using one or more frames outside the normal latency, and using them for multiple refreshes until the system catches up.

Note that when you shoot with mirror and OVF, you also have blackouts. While in EVF it only causes minor stuttering, especially at high shutter speeds.

 

[Trout Bum]

Ergonomics is one ...and some of us still hope they'll release larger bodies in future - with larger lenses...

I get it about the body, but who wants larger (and heavier) lenses???

 

[Trout Bum]

I'm sorry that you did not enjoy investing in photography equipment to photograph stupid birds. Since our planet is literally dying, it could be argued that one day, in a not so distant future, people will be craving to experience the beauty, simplicity, calmness, and environment of birds in an attempt to desperately capture that fragile world with photography / videography once again. By then, it will be too late. Given that 200,000 Americans graduate with an MBA every year, with no guarantee of making money or being happy, one could argue that the illusion imposed by society to the individual seeking their dream to be 'successful and happy' via another expensive degree is a deceitful ploy. Happiness is all in the eye of the beholder, and for so many photographers around the world, the personal 'value' of photographing the beauty of wildlife cannot be measured equally with societal value. In the end, to each their own.

I think perhaps Dolina's comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I'm guessing as well that the interest in shooting birds reveals an understanding and appreciation for the species, and not necessarily a disinterest in it's future well-being.

 

[chik0240]

The EVF is always a compromise, not to say strain on eye, the drain of battery and heating up of the sensor and processor is inevitable if used continuously compared to a DSLR, that’s physics regardless of technological change.

I agree that for most situations like taking casual shots usually the difference is insignificant but if say shooting events or during vacation at more remote areas where charging can become a problem then DSLR always have an advantage on this side. So let’s hope they keep some higher end DSLR lurking around like the Leica rangefinders for those who wanted or needed it instead of the mirror less ones.

 

[dtaylor]

That would apply to cases/systems where the signal is arbitrary (4ex coming from different games/applications on PC) and display is a universal device.
In cameras with EVF, the principles of signal processing are similar, but the whole thing is treated as a single device. When they advertise refresh rate of EVFs at 120fps, users don't expect the actual captures to be taken at 1fps and a latency of 0.5s.

What people expect from advertising has nothing to do with it. It's not a 'single device', it's a pipeline of components with physical limitations. Right off the bat the sensor can't continue to feed a 120 fps pipeline for the EVF while taking full resolution still photos involving a mechanical shutter and a sensor reset. There's going to be a gap.

In low light the EVF may be better than OVF, the actual frame rate may drop because of longer exposures, but you'll see more detail than when using an OVF.

I can see Orion through a 200mm f/2.8 and the Milky Way through f/1.4-f/2 UWA primes in an OVF. I've never seen an EVF approach that. EVFs are "better" in low light until they're not.

Note that when you shoot with mirror and OVF, you also have blackouts.

True, but when the mirror goes down what you see is literally what's happening at that moment. (Well...taking the speed of light into account.) I find the "minor stuttering" in EVFs to be quite annoying.

One of the use cases where I like EVFs is casual photography in tricky lighting because on a 2-3 dial camera you can spin dials until the exposure in the EVF is perfect ETTR. It's a very intuitive way to manually expose a scene.

One of the use cases I hate is fast action precisely because of the stutter. And I've tried the A9 bodies.

 

[RunAndGun]

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.

True, there is a difference between motion and stills. In stills you are generally trying to get that ONE decisive frame, but today who just snaps that ONE frame. I see the still guys editing their images in the media rooms and it looks almost like video as they scroll through sequences, because they just hold down the shutter during the whole play, essentially shooting their stills cams like its one of our video cameras and more than likely they got "the" frame in their somewhere. And in your example, it's still anticipation, because with an optical VF, "the moment" doesn't happen in the VF, it's obscured by the mirror flipping up and there is a delay between when you trip the shutter and the image is actually captured.

Something that could technically be implemented, especially if manufacturers moved to global shutter, which would easily allow all electronic shutter, they could essentially add pre-roll/pre-record that we have as an option on most of our modern video/cine cameras. They could compensate for the delay in the VF, so that when you hit the trigger, the camera is recording the frame(s) from .X seconds ago. Of course, this would effect battery life.

 

[mppix]

That's one I wish I had kept. Just got another 135mm f/2L. Won't ever sell that one again. I'll have to re-purchase all my RF glass again later.

Imagine they make that 85-135mm f2.0 zoom....

 

[hollybush]

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

Why would someone pay more for a designer chair that lacks carved legs and a recline function?

Why would someone pay more for a modernist house without carpet and gold taps?

Why would someone pay more for a lens with a fixed focal length and no zoom?

Why would someone pay more for a a smaller house in a better area?

In all these cases, the buyers do not value the extra "features". They will pay whatever they have to to get the features they do value.

 

[David - Sydney]

I think that unfortunately this rumour is going to be 100% true. I don’t think Canon will make a 5DV, not because there is no need for a 5DV or there is no market for it but for the opposite reason. The 5D line is Canon’s best FF line among pros and enthusiasts. If a 5DV was to be announced then can you imagine the impact it would have to the R5’s and R6’s sales? R5 and R6 seem great cameras, actually they seem more than great but they still cannot compare to a 5D successor. Why? Because people know the 5D line, they know what is capable of, they know how well built they are and how reliable they are. So I think between a 5DV with already owned lenses (from every 5D owner) and an R5 most would choose the 5DV. But Canon doesn’t want to give them the choice, for Canon the only path is mirrorless and the RF mount and that’s why the 5D successor is called R5 and the 6D successor is called R6. The good thing is that no one needs to buy new lenses since the EF lenses work pretty well when adapted to an RF camera, at least to the previous models.

Canon will make a 5Dv if they can make money out of it overall ie not including cannibalisation of other product lines. Some people will pay more than the R5 for specific features not on the R5 eg battery life, OVF, weight/size/ruggedness and perhaps goodies such as longer video times but want a bigger sensor than the 1DXiii. The R5 will meet a lot of pent-up Canon demand for some time and many will switch to RF (including me but for 1 lens) but there will be gaps that perhaps a 5Dv can meet at a lowish cost of a new model next year.
Consumers will buy based on what they perceive are the cost/benefits for them. If people are happy with a 5Div with EF lens then their total cost of ownership will be less to buy a 5Dv at a higher cost than migrate to the R5 for the next few years. They ultimately have the choice but RF will be the long term solution irrespective.

 

[David - Sydney]

Not picking on you, but I would like to see this line of reasoning retired once and for all.
First, no one has any proof this is true.
Second, there are no real world examples of this. The lowest cost Rebel and the lowest cost M that I can find are exactly the same price.
Third, even if it were true, the mirror assembly can hardly be a major factor in the total cost of a camera if Canon can make and sell DSLRs for $400.
Most importantly though, actual manufacturing costs are just one small consideration in retail pricing. People act like Canon is some guy in his garage, adding 50% to the cost of his parts and labor and selling them in the neighborhood.
Canon is a massive, multinational business. The embedded costs of thousands of other factors have far more to do with the price consumers pay than the mere cost of any single component. If anyone ever picks up an actual print version of National Geographic anymore, they'd see the full page Canon ad in every issue that by itself costs more than any difference between manufacturing costs of DSLRs and Mirrorless could ever be.

Agreed but the mirror box for a rebel is not the same as for 5D/R5. Definitely more expensive to support 500k actuations and 12 fps at a full frame size cf APS-C size. The prism is also bigger for full frame. We clearly aren't talking about $100s though. Reusing component assemblies eg 1DXii AF (for OVF), 5D body and R5 internals would significantly reduce the R&D cost and leadtime to market and should overall increase the quantity sold amortising the R&D to a greater degree.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

Then the R5/6 is the one for you then. If there is a higer cost niche (at appropriate profit margin) for legacy OVF users that are prepared to continue with just EF lens then that should be acceptable for Canon. We will see but I am still on the fence whether the 5Dv is dead or not. If a 5Dv came out at the same time as the R5 with the same goodies but in an identical form factor then I would have got the 5Dv because I have an underwater housing that fits 5Diii/iv/SR. The housing costs as much as the body!

 

[chik0240]

fps

What people expect from advertising has nothing to do with it. It's not a 'single device', it's a pipeline of components with physical limitations. Right off the bat the sensor can't continue to feed a 120 fps pipeline for the EVF while taking full resolution still photos involving a mechanical shutter and a sensor reset. There's going to be a gap.



I can see Orion through a 200mm f/2.8 and the Milky Way through f/1.4-f/2 UWA primes in an OVF. I've never seen an EVF approach that. EVFs are "better" in low light until they're not.



True, but when the mirror goes down what you see is literally what's happening at that moment. (Well...taking the speed of light into account.) I find the "minor stuttering" in EVFs to be quite annoying.

One of the use cases where I like EVFs is casual photography in tricky lighting because on a 2-3 dial camera you can spin dials until the exposure in the EVF is perfect ETTR. It's a very intuitive way to manually expose a scene.

One of the use cases I hate is fast action precisely because of the stutter. And I've tried the A9 bodies.

Actually both are the reason I prefer a 5D V instead of a R5, yes the R5 don't need focus adjustment and records great movie plus better wide angle lens, but it can do the trickery lighting part by LV and for most of the time I got the battery saving OVF, lens wise yes the RF opens up a lot of great lens designs, but if adapted to the weight of the old system, the EF lenses are actually good enough to be unnoticeable, say in my lens collection I still use the decade old 70-200 F4L IS and 16-35 F2.8 L II with absolutely no desire to upgrade to the later version. yes in pixel peeping the sharpness might fall a bit but that's not perceivable for 99% of cases and $$$ in my account is very perceivable. so the RF lens with their even more monstrous size pose a major drag for upgrading.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

What people expect from advertising has nothing to do with it. It's not a 'single device', it's a pipeline of components with physical limitations. Right off the bat the sensor can't continue to feed a 120 fps pipeline for the EVF while taking full resolution still photos involving a mechanical shutter and a sensor reset. There's going to be a gap.

From the user's perspective, it's a single device, unlike 4ex desktop PC + monitor. So with EVFs, as a user I don't expect hidden latency behind the claimed 60 or 120 Hz refresh rates. Moreover, technically the R5/R6 should be able to provide a minimal latency - that is, display the captured image at the nearest frame update in the EVF, thus producing the minimal possible latency.

Blackout/freeze in the EVF shouldn't be longer than exposure time + readout + time till the nearest EVF update. So with short exposures it should be negligible. With DSLR, the optical blackout also includes time to move the mirror in and out.

I didn't use Sony A9II myself, but reviews/videos show literally no noticeable stuttering at 20 fps shooting (although it's fully electronic shutter). I expect to see the same in the R5/R6.

 

[Otara]

Then the R5/6 is the one for you then. If there is a higer cost niche (at appropriate profit margin) for legacy OVF users that are prepared to continue with just EF lens then that should be acceptable for Canon. We will see but I am still on the fence whether the 5Dv is dead or not. If a 5Dv came out at the same time as the R5 with the same goodies but in an identical form factor then I would have got the 5Dv because I have an underwater housing that fits 5Diii/iv/SR. The housing costs as much as the body!

You've had better luck than me then, every new camera Ive bought has needed a new housing, other than the 40D/50D. Id love to get a housing for the R5, but I suspect the Nauticam version will make the camera look cheap.

 

[Fischer]

I went shooting the other day with the EOS R and the 5DSR. Using the 5DSR again after adapting to mirrorless was like going back to the stone age. I know there are plenty of people who love DSLRs, but no-way I'd ever go back to using one as my primary camera again.

Even if its the opposite for myself I fully agree that mirrorless cameras have inherent advantages that makes taking the pictures we want easier.

Having seen the very convincing specs and gleaming the lttle info so far from the R5 pre-reviews - I am looking very much forward to the release of the high MPIX R .

 

[drama]

I could also see Canon still release a 5DS Mark II at some point in the future.

Agree. I think the short term plan is to push consumers to the R system. Make it the new norm. Then it will be time to put out a couple of new EF bodies that maybe have different numberings, maybe use sensors that appeared in the R line first, that kind of thing. So they will still support, but the innovation will come in the R system.