Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[Michael Clark]

In an economic sense, an investment is the purchase of goods that are not consumed today but are used in the future to create wealth. In finance, an investment is a monetary asset purchased with the idea that the asset will provide income in the future or will later be sold at a higher price for a profit. (investopedia). A professional photographer will invest in his or her gear to make a profit. At the end of its use to him or her, the price it is sold for will affect the overall wealth created, but is should still be a profitable investment even if sold at a loss. If you had rented out that house for $20,000 p.a. for ten years, and lost $20,000 on its purchase price, it would still have been a profitable investment.

An old meaning of investment is: the surrounding of a place by a hostile force in order to besiege or blockade it. This discussion is beginning to resemble the archaic meaning.

I agree with the investopedia definition. It says exactly what I'm contending. But I do not agree with your interpretation of it in what follows that definition. By your application, every roll of film a photographer bought to shoot a wedding with would have been an investment. So would the gas she bought yesterday to get to the gig tomorrow. Those are expenses, not investments. For a commodities trader that buys and sells bulk gasoline futures, gas is an investment. For a photographer putting gas in her car to get to a gig, it's an expense. A proper understanding of the investopedia definition should make that perfectly clear.

Maybe I'm a little too press/media centric when it comes to who I consider to be a "professional photographer", but for the most part with regard to cameras and lenses, by the end of use for those folks there wasn't much of anything left to sell. The idea that most true pros use their equipment so infrequently that they sell it in 8+ or 9 condition is laughable to me. Most of the pros I know use it until it falls apart. The guys with high paying day jobs that dabble in photography on the weekends are the ones constantly buying and selling gear, and never making enough from photography to cover what they spend on it.

My PJ friends used lenses until they broke and couldn't be fixed anymore (because Canon or Nikon no longer had parts). They tended to "leapfrog" body models - half or fewer of their bodies got replaced each time a new model came out, then the other half (or less) got replaced for the next model. So, for example, the top photog at my local paper would be shooting with a D5 and using a D3s as a second body, the second guy would have a D4 and a D3s. The third guy would have a D4 and the best remaining D3. Sometimes they still wore one completely out before the next model was introduced. If one of the bodies wore out before the top guy got a new D6 when it debuted, they'd buy another D5 and play hand me down. The old D3 that mostly worked and D2X bodies would still be in the storage cabinet for when a regular reporter occasionally needed a body or for when one of the main bodies were at Nikon getting worked on.

 

[Kit.]

It’s all ultimately digital, even “analog” - quantum theory.

It's all ultimately Bayesian... or at least so our current state of knowledge tells us.

 

[Michael Clark]

In economics (if you are a business), it is called "fixed investment".

From the linked Wiki definition above:

The term "fixed investment" may be somewhat ambiguous, because it could refer to the value of a stock of fixed assets being held at a balance date, or as in economics, to the value of a flow of expenditures on fixed assets across an accounting interval, such as a year. The distinction is not always clearly stated in statistical tabulations—they might refer either to the stock of capital tied up in fixed assets at a balance date, or to how much was spent on fixed equipment during a quarter or year.

Which means that for all practical purposes, what are called fixed investments are just as easily called long-term expenses (i.e "flow of expenditures").

And this is called "value investment".

Of course it is.

 

[Michael Clark]

It's all ultimately Bayesian... or at least so our current state of knowledge tells us.

If we can ever stop insisting on thinking that linear time exists at the quantum level, it would allow for far more certainty.

 

[Kit.]

I agree with the investopedia definition. It says exactly what I'm contending. But I do not agree with your interpretation of it in what follows that definition. By your application, every roll of film a photographer bought to shoot a wedding with would have been an investment. So would the gas she bought yesterday to get to the gig tomorrow.

In macroeconomics, it's called "inventory investment".

Although, macroeconomics typically works with time scales that are longer than "overnight". If you buy a stock of discontinued film and put it into a freezer to use for years to come, that's an investment even if you won't try to resell it unshot.

 

[Michael Clark]

In macroeconomics, it's called "inventory investment".

Although, macroeconomics typically works with time scales that are longer than "overnight". If you buy a stock of discontinued film and put it into a freezer to use for years to come, that's an investment even if you won't try to resell it unshot.

But again, what companies spend on inventory investment is just another way of saying expenses incurred today for consumables used in the future. No one expects to sell such unused inventory at a later date for a profit or a zero net loss. They might wind up selling it in the future for pennies on the dollar if they need to raise cash and their business is using less of a particular consumable commodity than they anticipated when they purchased it.

So the idea that I can buy a $5K lens, use it for three or four years, and sell it for near the same price I paid is not an example of "inventory investment." It's an example of someone seeing a "value investment" where one doesn't really exist.

 

[Optics Patent]

CPS Platinum does pay shipping both ways.

That wasn’t evident from my first loan but I will certainly investigate. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Kit.]

But again, what companies spend on inventory investment is just another way of saying expenses incurred today for consumables used in the future. No one expects to sell such unused inventory at a later date for a profit or a zero net loss. They might wind up selling it in the future for pennies on the dollar if they need to raise cash and their business is using less of a particular consumable commodity than they anticipated when they purchased it.

So the idea that I can buy a $5K lens, use it for three or four years, and sell it for near the same price I paid is not an example of "inventory investment." It's an example of someone seeing a "value investment" where one doesn't really exist.

If someone thinks that "investment" is only something that could be resold as a whole at a later date, they are wrong.

For example, isn't a college degree an investment (we are not talking about how good or bad this investment is)? In my case, I haven't even spent money on it (in fact, I was earning a stipend), only time.

So, for me, my lenses are an investment as well, even if I don't expect to ever sell them.

 

[Michael Clark]

If someone thinks that "investment" is only something that could be resold as a whole at a later date, they are wrong.

For example, isn't a college degree an investment (we are not talking about how good or bad this investment is)? In my case, I haven't even spent money on it (in fact, I was earning a stipend), only time.

So, for me, my lenses are an investment as well, even if I don't expect to ever sell them.

Your lenses may be an "investment" to you, but they are not a value investment.

As for a college degree, the admissions office recruiter will certain tell you it's an investment. A used car salesman will also tell you the lemon he's trying to sell you for way too much money is an investment. That doesn't mean it is, though.

 

[BillB]

.. and would keep buying them. How would Canon justify and recover the RF R&D costs if they port everything to EF?
By now they are heavily invested and its highly doubtful that they are selling anywhere close to enough RF equipment, yet.
Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate but its also a genuine question.

The devil may well be in the details on this one. People can buy an RF lens, buy an EF lens, buy neither, or buy both. One question is how much EF lens sales will cut into RF sales. Another is how long EF lens sales can cover the cost of EF production, even considering the loss of RF sales because of the availability of EF lenses. I am ok leaving it to Canon to figure this out.

 

[ahsanford]

There's not much innovation needed, as that has been already done for the 1DX III. But there may be new components needed, that make it more difficult to create a 5D V than an R5 with the rumored R5 specs.

I didn't say work isn't required. Sure, Canon has to choose between leveraging existing 1-/5-series tech and coming up with something new. But Canon can absolutely Frankenstein together a compelling optical powertrain from their considerable experience and prior designs.

I'm just saying that a 5D5 doesn't require an innovation committee. It's a 5D -- small thoughtful changes externally are all that are needed while more horsepower is piled on internally. That camera is not a difficult one to envision or deliver, IMHO.

Perhaps the key quesiton with the 5D5 is not 'if?' but 'when?'. Perhaps Canon will leave a healthy chunk of time between R5 and 5D5 release to get folks to buy both, get more folks jumping in to RF sooner, etc.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

As long as the EF-M system is the best selling mirrorless camera system on the planet, it's not going anywhere.

But what's best for EOS M sales (i.e. sticking EF-M) may not be what's best for RF body sales.

EF-M glass doesn't work on RF bodies, and Canon could fix that without eliminating why folks love EOS M:

• Start putting out inexpensive RF-S (crop image circle RF) lenses
• Offer a few tiny RF mount bodies with crop sensors (R50, R500 if you will) at Rebel like prices. In effect, Canon would offer tiny EOS M bodies with RF mounts.
• Ramp down EOS M and EF-M production once this new line of small RF crop bodies and RF-S lenses cover the same bases as EOS M and EF-M lenses do today (that won't take long, there only ~ 10 lenses and a few bodies)

And then it's one mount to rule them all.

It might take a few years, but the future state of one mount that receives all lenses simply makes more sense.

- A

 

[Kit.]

As for a college degree, the admissions office recruiter will certain tell you it's an investment.

To be honest, I was going there to spend most of my college time in Alferov's lab. Which worked, but wasn't the only benefit.

Have no regrets at all.

 

[scyrene]

hens cackling. They need to get a room or at least a ring to duke it out.

I'm enjoying it! *Munches popcorn*

 

[Optics Patent]

CPS Platinum does pay shipping both ways.

From the CPS website: "The CPS Member is responsible for all return shipping costs."

 

[AEWest]

Have you ever considered the possibility that:

1) The transition from all mechanical FD to all electronic EF forced Canon to choose not to make them backwards compatible in 1987? (Yet even then, Canon kept on selling FD lenses and bodies for another half decade until 1992.)

2) Canon may have learned something from the FD to EF transition and are using that knowledge now?

3) You're so bitter because of your own experience during the FD to EF transition that you can't look at this with a clear eye?

I believe we are violently agreeing! I have also said that EF would be phased out, and most here realize that EF is in the downward part of the product life cycle. It is just the slope of that down ward cycle that we disagree on - and not even Canon knows for sure. I'm sure they want it as steep as possible, that would mean that RF is a resounding success with the new cameras and lenses flying off the shelves. Then they could discontinue production of equivalent EF lenses much sooner.

1) Canon did sell FD cameras and lenses afterward, but they did not come out with new bodies for FD or new lenses. They were definitely all in on EF. Many people here are still hoping that EF cameras will continue, but that would seriously interefere with the adoption of RF and hence flattening that slope - not in Canon's best interest.

2) The sudden switch to EF actually helped them to free from their legacy system and and take over a large part of the pro market within 5 years that previously had been owned by Nikon.

3) I am not bitter about the transition. I got over it last year!

 

[ahsanford]

From the CPS website: "The CPS Member is responsible for all return shipping costs."

CPS Platinum loaners and repairs get free shipping both ways, but I'm not sure about returns of purchases.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I believe we are violently agreeing! I have also said that EF would be phased out, and most here realize that EF is in the downward part of the product life cycle. It is just the slope of that down ward cycle that we disagree on - and not even Canon knows for sure. I'm sure they want it as steep as possible, that would mean that RF is a resounding success with the new cameras and lenses flying off the shelves. Then they could discontinue production of equivalent EF lenses much sooner.

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

 

[richperson]

Reality is a bitch isn't it!

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Maybe you could clarify.

 

[AEWest]

If someone thinks that "investment" is only something that could be resold as a whole at a later date, they are wrong.

For example, isn't a college degree an investment (we are not talking about how good or bad this investment is)? In my case, I haven't even spent money on it (in fact, I was earning a stipend), only time.

So, for me, my lenses are an investment as well, even if I don't expect to ever sell them.

If an asset is purchased in order to help generate revenue it is an investment. If the asset loses value over time, then you have a depreciation (or in accounting parlance amortization) expense that you deduct from revenue. However the asset is still an investment.