Search results

It is an endless question. I guess for me all of the video features, while nice, just add to the cost and complexity of the camera. It is not the hard cost that keeps the price high but I would think the R&D costs are pretty expensive. Even saying this I would but the R5 in a heartbeat if I had...

Maybe. In the small group of photographers that I know only one person has shot video. CR did a survey a couple of years ago and only a very small percentage, less than 10% I believe shot video. Not saying video is not a valued market but is it bigger than stills shooting. It would be...

Personally my solution would be for Canon to build an R5 with ZERO video capabilities. I do not shoot video...again just my personal take on stills/video cameras. Each to their own.

Great. Now that you know the "future" can you please pass on any lottery numbers that you can for see;)

Very poor taste with this comment. If you do not like Canon then move on to something you like and support it.

Pretty bold statement. Do you have scientific facts to prove your point or are these just your personal feelings? PS: I would prefer a FF camera with no video at all. There are a multitude of excellent video cameras available. Not so much for stills only cameras. Not sure why people feel that...

agreed;) I use a Tamron 150-600, not quite as sharp as a Canon 100-400...and all are hand held...BTW beautiful pic...

Tired of hearing this thought repeated...the 6D MKII is not a bad camera. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I do not own one, I own the other "really bad" Canon 5dsr...at least according to the uninformed...

Goodbye and good luck;)

New to Canon Rumours. I am a Canon shooter for the most part. 5DsR is my tool of choice. I shoot for fun but I do take it seriously and like to produce the best images I can. The new EOS R has me intrigued. I thought everyone might enjoy Scott Kelby's take on the camera...