Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[slclick]

Man, why are you so...cranky?
It's not a Shimano, right?

Context sucks with typing, I know. It was not a mean spirited post at all. It was actually in the vein of listing and comparing. I know how it could have come across differently but , well it's how you take things, right?

(fwiw, I ride Shimano, but never on the road)

 

[Lee Jay]

Okay, here's what I have now:

20D/5D - semi-retired
7D Mark II
8-15/4L fisheye (180° horizontal to 22mm-equivalent rectilinear when defished)
10-18STM (lightweight rectilinear ultrawide with IS)
Sigma 18-35/1.8 (standard for low-light moving subjects)
18-135 nano-USM (good light general walkaround and power-zoom semi-hyperzoom for video)
50/1.8 STM (low-light gap-filler)
55-250 STM (light-weight stabilized telephoto)
70-200/2.8L IS II (low-light stabilized telephoto)
Sigma 150-600C (good light super-telephoto zoom)
Celestron Edge HD 11 with EF adapter (2,800mm f10, 2000mm, f7 with wide adapter)

To switch to a full-frame R, I figure:

Keep the 8-15 and always use it in crop mode (I have no interest in circular fisheye shots).
Replace 10-18 with 15-35/2.8 ($2,300) (similar range, faster, heavier and way, way more expensive)
Replace 18-35/1.8 with 24-70/2.8 ($2,300) (tiny bit more range, same speed, stabilized)
Replace 18-135 with 24-240 ($900) (tiny bit more range)
No replacement for the 55-250 (no lightweight 400mm-equivalent lenses are available)
I guess keep the 70-200 and 150-600, and just take the resolution hit (17MP vs 20MP in crop mode), or replace the 70-200 with the RF 70-200 ($2,700)
Use two adapters (RF-EF, EF-2 inch) with the scope.

So, that's $5,500 + the body or maybe $8,200 + the body if I replace the 70-200 as well, minus anything I could get on the used market. Add to that, a half-dozen batteries since the battery life is bound to be half to a tenth, depending on what you are doing (I have three batteries for the 7D II now).

What would I get for that? Well, I'd have a lot more speed below 29mm-equivalent due to the 15-35 and 24-70, and a bit more range in the walk-around (24-240 vs 29-216, while having less resolution in the fisheye and at 600mm on the 150-600. And I'd have to deal with a likely far-inferior viewfinder experience that would make it much harder to track high-speed subjects, which is a good 90% of what I shoot. But the alternative is I basically keep what I have forever because no upgrade will ever happen.

Doesn't sound like there are many decent options for me.

 

[privatebydesign]

To switch to a full-frame R, I figure:

Keep the 8-15 and always use it in crop mode (I have no interest in circular fisheye shots).

Sell it and get the Canon 15mm f2.8 fisheye, it is lighter faster and sharper and if you have no interest in circular fisheyes then you will get more for the zoom than the prime costs you. I've had mine out in the rain and heavy dew many times and it is still perfect.

 

[AEWest]

Okay, here's what I have now:

20D/5D - semi-retired
7D Mark II
8-15/4L fisheye (180° horizontal to 22mm-equivalent rectilinear when defished)
10-18STM (lightweight rectilinear ultrawide with IS)
Sigma 18-35/1.8 (standard for low-light moving subjects)
18-135 nano-USM (good light general walkaround and power-zoom semi-hyperzoom for video)
50/1.8 STM (low-light gap-filler)
55-250 STM (light-weight stabilized telephoto)
70-200/2.8L IS II (low-light stabilized telephoto)
Sigma 150-600C (good light super-telephoto zoom)
Celestron Edge HD 11 with EF adapter (2,800mm f10, 2000mm, f7 with wide adapter)

To switch to a full-frame R, I figure:

Keep the 8-15 and always use it in crop mode (I have no interest in circular fisheye shots).
Replace 10-18 with 15-35/2.8 ($2,300) (similar range, faster, heavier and way, way more expensive)
Replace 18-35/1.8 with 24-70/2.8 ($2,300) (tiny bit more range, same speed, stabilized)
Replace 18-135 with 24-240 ($900) (tiny bit more range)
No replacement for the 55-250 (no lightweight 400mm-equivalent lenses are available)
I guess keep the 70-200 and 150-600, and just take the resolution hit (17MP vs 20MP in crop mode), or replace the 70-200 with the RF 70-200 ($2,700)
Use two adapters (RF-EF, EF-2 inch) with the scope.

So, that's $5,500 + the body or maybe $8,200 + the body if I replace the 70-200 as well, minus anything I could get on the used market. Add to that, a half-dozen batteries since the battery life is bound to be half to a tenth, depending on what you are doing (I have three batteries for the 7D II now).

What would I get for that? Well, I'd have a lot more speed below 29mm-equivalent due to the 15-35 and 24-70, and a bit more range in the walk-around (24-240 vs 29-216, while having less resolution in the fisheye and at 600mm on the 150-600. And I'd have to deal with a likely far-inferior viewfinder experience that would make it much harder to track high-speed subjects, which is a good 90% of what I shoot. But the alternative is I basically keep what I have forever because no upgrade will ever happen.

Doesn't sound like there are many decent options for me.

That is unfortunate. I also doubt that Canon will ever announce a 5D5 as they would effectively be shooting themselves in the foot by competing with their own R5.
You have a substantial investment in glass and I assume you don't shoot much video. So getting an RF mount camera does not provide the benefits that it would for other types of users.
The 5D mark 4 may go on sale once the R5 is introduced so you could pick that up and it will last many years and produce excellent photos.

 

[Lee Jay]

Sell it and get the Canon 15mm f2.8 fisheye, it is lighter faster and sharper and if you have no interest in circular fisheyes then you will get more for the zoom than the prime costs you. I've had mine out in the rain and heavy dew many times and it is still perfect.

Funny part is, I had the Sigma 15mm fisheye and sold it when I switched away from the 5D to the 7D mark II. The 8-15 is way, way more flexible. As I said, I use is as a 180° horizontal (wider than 15mm on full-frame) to 22mm rectilinear (narrower than a 15mm on full-frame) and I use it A LOT. Most of the time, I carry either the 8-15 or the 10-18, but not both. Since the zoom fisheye can do just about everything the 10-18 can do *except have stabilization*, I only take the 10-18 when I know I'm going to need the stabilization.

 

[Lee Jay]

That is unfortunate. I also doubt that Canon will ever announce a 5D5 as they would effectively be shooting themselves in the foot by competing with their own R5.
You have a substantial investment in glass and I assume you don't shoot much video. So getting an RF mount camera does not provide the benefits that it would for other types of users.
The 5D mark 4 may go on sale once the R5 is introduced so you could pick that up and it will last many years and produce excellent photos.

I've taken over 80,000 images and 270 videos on my 7D mark II, so the video features don't interest me very much.

And the 5DIV won't use 5 of my lenses (if you include the 8-15, because it won't use it properly).

 

[jd7]

I also doubt that Canon will ever announce a 5D5 as they would effectively be shooting themselves in the foot by competing with their own R5.

Why? I didn't see why Canon would really care that much whether you buy an R camera or a 5D camera, as long as you but a Canon, so having models which appeal to those who like DSLR as well as models for those ego like mirrorless just gives them more potential sales. Sure, moving people to the R system may have some advantage for Canon in that it might increase chance of lens sales if people decide they want RF lenses too, and of course Canon doesn't want to spend resources developing gear which just doesn't sell much at all, but looking at the bigger picture I would be very surprised if Canon was shooting itself in the foot at all by bringing out a 5D5 ... and in fact it may be the opposite which would be true.

Canon differentiates its products at different price points, as you'd expect, but Canon's competition comes from other manufacturers, not its own products.

 

[Nelu]

Context sucks with typing, I know. It was not a mean spirited post at all. It was actually in the vein of listing and comparing. I know how it could have come across differently but , well it's how you take things, right?

(fwiw, I ride Shimano, but never on the road)

I was only bugging you about your profile icon
Your post was just fine...

 

[Rbus]

I like the spec's except it does not mention whether it has a GPS. I use the GPS to locate my landscape photo locations.

 

[slclick]

I was only bugging you about your profile icon
Your post was just fine...

I realized my icon also double as a middle finger and a phallus. Bonus.

 

[AEWest]

Why? I didn't see why Canon would really care that much whether you buy an R camera or a 5D camera, as long as you but a Canon, so having models which appeal to those who like DSLR as well as models for those ego like mirrorless just gives them more potential sales. Sure, moving people to the R system may have some advantage for Canon in that it might increase chance of lens sales if people decide they want RF lenses too, and of course Canon doesn't want to spend resources developing gear which just doesn't sell much at all, but looking at the bigger picture I would be very surprised if Canon was shooting itself in the foot at all by bringing out a 5D5 ... and in fact it may be the opposite which would be true.

Canon differentiates its products at different price points, as you'd expect, but Canon's competition comes from other manufacturers, not its own products.

Superficially I agree with you - if they can make a buck selling a 5D, why not continue produce and sell them? The situation is more complicated than that, and I will illustrate with an example from another industry.

I work in the banking industry (sorry!) and our bank has many retail branches in our metropolitan area. In one particular suburb community we had two branches, and this particular community is growing fairly rapidly due to high costs in the central part of the city pushing people out.

Both branches were profitable, but about 5 years ago we decided to close one of the two and consolidate to the remaining branch about 4 km away. At the time, many of our customers were very angry that we had closed their convenient branch and vowed to close their accounts and go to a competing bank closer to them. Many did.

So why did we do it? There was a technological change that we were trying to stay in front of. Specifically online banking was really starting to negatively impact the walk in traffic numbers. Although the branch was profitable at that point in time, the tea leaves were clear in showing that we would need fewer tellers and other staff to provide banking services in the coming years. Given how the walk in traffic numbers have deteriorated since then, I am certain that had we kept both branches, neither branch would be profitable now.

In terms of Canon, they have openly stated that they want to be the king of mirrorless cameras. If you look at CIPA numbers, it is a smart strategy as DSLR sales have decreased by 32% vs 4.4% for mirrorless in 2019. You don't become king of mirrorless by continuing to develop DSLRs even if some of your existing customers want them. Some of these DSLR customers may leave you, but you may gain back many who had moved to Sony mirrorless over the past few years. In a declining market, you have to rationalize operations and try to take as much market share in the profitable portion as you can.

 

[brad-man]

Superficially I agree with you - if they can make a buck selling a 5D, why not continue produce and sell them? The situation is more complicated than that, and I will illustrate with an example from another industry.

I work in the banking industry (sorry!) and our bank has many retail branches in our metropolitan area. In one particular suburb community we had two branches, and this particular community is growing fairly rapidly due to high costs in the central part of the city pushing people out.

Both branches were profitable, but about 5 years ago we decided to close one of the two and consolidate to the remaining branch about 4 km away. At the time, many of our customers were very angry that we had closed their convenient branch and vowed to close their accounts and go to a competing bank closer to them. Many did.

So why did we do it? There was a technological change that we were trying to stay in front of. Specifically online banking was really starting to negatively impact the walk in traffic numbers. Although the branch was profitable at that point in time, the tea leaves were clear in showing that we would need fewer tellers and other staff to provide banking services in the coming years. Given how the walk in traffic numbers have deteriorated since then, I am certain that had we kept both branches, neither branch would be profitable now.

In terms of Canon, they have openly stated that they want to be the king of mirrorless cameras. If you look at CIPA numbers, it is a smart strategy as DSLR sales have decreased by 32% vs 4.4% for mirrorless in 2019. You don't become king of mirrorless by continuing to develop DSLRs even if some of your existing customers want them. Some of these DSLR customers may leave you, but you may gain back many who had moved to Sony mirrorless over the past few years. In a declining market, you have to rationalize operations and try to take as much market share in the profitable portion as you can.

Poppycock! Your analogy would be apt only if Canon operated a separate factory to produce EF lenses, thereby incurring additional expense. They don't. RF and EF lenses are produced on the same line. So there's that...

 

[jd7]

In terms of Canon, they have openly stated that they want to be the king of mirrorless cameras. If you look at CIPA numbers, it is a smart strategy as DSLR sales have decreased by 32% vs 4.4% for mirrorless in 2019. You don't become king of mirrorless by continuing to develop DSLRs even if some of your existing customers want them. Some of these DSLR customers may leave you, but you may gain back many who had moved to Sony mirrorless over the past few years. In a declining market, you have to rationalize operations and try to take as much market share in the profitable portion as you can.

I understand your story about a bank closing a branch, but the point there was there was a substantial cost saving to be made by closing it and demand for branch services was anticipated to drop, such that your bank expected to be able to service the required volume of branch services with only one branch. The pain point was losing some customers who not only wanted/needed branch services but (suffiiciently) valued having a branch nearer them (despite having internet and no doubt phone banking available) to be motivated to switch to another bank - if there was even another bank offering a suitable option for them. So, your bank estimated the savings it would make versus anticipated drop in profit from losing some customers ( almost all of whom were likely retail customers who don't contribute much to the bank's profit really, is my guess) and decided closing the branch was the way to go.

In Canon's case, the question is whether continuing to develop DSLRs is really an impediment to becoming king of mirrorless. I don't know anything about camera manufacturing really, so I could be way off, but I doubt it very much. I suspect a lot of tech is shared between both lines (ie DSLR and mirrorless), and much of the new tech being developed in future will be able to be used in both lines. And Canon already has the tech and manufacturing equipment for the things which DSLRs need (eg mirror box and OVF) but mirrorless cameras do not. So, while I can see Canon focusing on developing the R system for now (after all, it is new and underdeveloped at this point), I am less confident there is any real downside for them to keep their hand in the DSLR game. The EF lens system is very well developed already so there is no burning need to keep pushing development of EF lenses at the moment even if they keep developing DSLRs. So, in the end it comes down to knowing what it would cost Canon (in terms of resources) to keep developing DSLRs and presumably producing a few more EF lenses (existing models being fine - no need to prioritise developing new ones) versus the expected profit drop if Canon stops selling them. No doubt Canon is better placed than any of us to know the answer to that. However, my feeling remains there is a good chance it will remain profitable for Canon to keep developing DSLRs at least for a while yet - even though I'm sure much of Canon's marketing will be aimed at convincing us all we cannot possibly take a good picture anymore unless we move over the the R system and buy some RF lenses (that only makes sense from Canon's point of view!) - and so doubt Canon continuing to produce DSLRs would be shooting itself in the foot by producing something which competes with Canon's mirrorless line.

As I said earlier, Canon's competition is other manufacturers. Provided people are buying Canon equipment (be it DSLR, mirrorless or whatever) rather than a competitor's equipment, Canon doesn't really have anything to be too unhappy about. (For the same reason, I've always thought the statements commonly posted online about Canon not bringing out a mirrorless FF camera because it would "cannibalise" Canon's DSLR market were entirely misguided.)

 

[djkraq]

Can someone explain to me why Canon does not confirm if a 5DV will be launched? What do they have to loose? They still don't know if they will do it by now?

Money. They can loose a lot of money if the majority of market demands mirrorless features but they release a DSLR nobody but a small minority will buy

 

[AEWest]

I understand your story about a bank closing a branch, but the point there was there was a substantial cost saving to be made by closing it and demand for branch services was anticipated to drop, such that your bank expected to be able to service the required volume of branch services with only one branch. The pain point was losing some customers who not only wanted/needed branch services but (suffiiciently) valued having a branch nearer them (despite having internet and no doubt phone banking available) to be motivated to switch to another bank - if there was even another bank offering a suitable option for them. So, your bank estimated the savings it would make versus anticipated drop in profit from losing some customers ( almost all of whom were likely retail customers who don't contribute much to the bank's profit really, is my guess) and decided closing the branch was the way to go.

In Canon's case, the question is whether continuing to develop DSLRs is really an impediment to becoming king of mirrorless. I don't know anything about camera manufacturing really, so I could be way off, but I doubt it very much. I suspect a lot of tech is shared between both lines (ie DSLR and mirrorless), and much of the new tech being developed in future will be able to be used in both lines. And Canon already has the tech and manufacturing equipment for the things which DSLRs need (eg mirror box and OVF) but mirrorless cameras do not. So, while I can see Canon focusing on developing the R system for now (after all, it is new and underdeveloped at this point), I am less confident there is any real downside for them to keep their hand in the DSLR game. The EF lens system is very well developed already so there is no burning need to keep pushing development of EF lenses at the moment even if they keep developing DSLRs. So, in the end it comes down to knowing what it would cost Canon (in terms of resources) to keep developing DSLRs and presumably producing a few more EF lenses (existing models being fine - no need to prioritise developing new ones) versus the expected profit drop if Canon stops selling them. No doubt Canon is better placed than any of us to know the answer to that. However, my feeling remains there is a good chance it will remain profitable for Canon to keep developing DSLRs at least for a while yet - even though I'm sure much of Canon's marketing will be aimed at convincing us all we cannot possibly take a good picture anymore unless we move over the the R system and buy some RF lenses (that only makes sense from Canon's point of view!) - and so doubt Canon continuing to produce DSLRs would be shooting itself in the foot by producing something which competes with Canon's mirrorless line.

As I said earlier, Canon's competition is other manufacturers. Provided people are buying Canon equipment (be it DSLR, mirrorless or whatever) rather than a competitor's equipment, Canon doesn't really have anything to be too unhappy about. (For the same reason, I've always thought the statements commonly posted online about Canon not bringing out a mirrorless FF camera because it would "cannibalise" Canon's DSLR market were entirely misguided.)

Thank you. You do make some good points. The problem I see is that by continuing DSLR development, the EF mount will have to continue. Canon is spending millions on RF mount lens development, and must recoup the costs through the sale of these lenses. So you can see that by introducing new EF cameras, they are in fact competing against the RF mount since the EF cameras obviously cannot fit with RF lenses.

They then have the unenviable situation of making duplicate lenses for two systems, in a sharply declining market. So if overall sales of, say, 70-200 f2.8 lens is shrinking from 20,000 units to 15,000 units per year, you are now splitting that lower sales volume between two different lenses, reducing economies of scale and thus increasing the per unit cost of each lens.

But only Canon knows the exact market situation that they are facing, and it will be interesting to see how they respond - whether to bring out a new 5D or not.

 

[Nuno Oliveira]

All of you guys make very good points. I wonder if Canon has any interest in following threads like this.

 

[Jethro]

All of you guys make very good points. I wonder if Canon has any interest in following threads like this.

If so they would be assigning the holiday kid to do it ...

 

[Kit.]

I realized my icon also double as a middle finger and a phallus. Bonus.

And as a hedgehog.

 

[UlricWolf]

I have used many EVF cameras, since the 1980s. I own several. I don't own an EVF ILC because, when I test them in the stores, they have all the same problems all the EVF cameras I've ever owned have.



I've been a photographer since 1979. So what?



Please show me some shots you've taken, of high-speed moving subjects, framed tightly, at 900mm-equivalent or more, preferably a long burst showing you kept it tightly framed while tracking and shooting. I have dozens or hundreds of such shots and burst take on SLRs.

I dont need to show You nothing, because I clearly see that 1) You are talkting bull* and trying to compare technologies witch change not by decades but by months 2) Keep using Your DSLRs, thats Your preference, good. But dont talk what You dont know.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

Thank you. You do make some good points. The problem I see is that by continuing DSLR development, the EF mount will have to continue. Canon is spending millions on RF mount lens development, and must recoup the costs through the sale of these lenses. So you can see that by introducing new EF cameras, they are in fact competing against the RF mount since the EF cameras obviously cannot fit with RF lenses.

They then have the unenviable situation of making duplicate lenses for two systems, in a sharply declining market. So if overall sales of, say, 70-200 f2.8 lens is shrinking from 20,000 units to 15,000 units per year, you are now splitting that lower sales volume between two different lenses, reducing economies of scale and thus increasing the per unit cost of each lens.

But only Canon knows the exact market situation that they are facing, and it will be interesting to see how they respond - whether to bring out a new 5D or not.

True, but only to some extent. I don't think Canon has to recoup all the RF mount development costs by selling RF lenses (- though I'm sure they would be happy to) - after all, they can just as easily recover the costs through selling EF lenses too. EF lens development is surely by now mostly all amortised or recovered, so all EF sales help cover the costs of RF development too. Canon may consider itself lucky the it can try out something new, maybe the future, yet has a stalwart product range, all paid for already, to help contribute to the 'new' product development costs.
Just a thought..
Cheers.