The Canon EOS 5D Mark V is in the works [CR2]

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,250
281
Davidson, NC
I just barely avoided ever having to work with cards. My intro Computer Science class, I was put into the one out of three sections that was experimenting with doing things on a microprocessor. The other two got to use punch cards. (And that "micro"processor was two times the size of the original IBM PC and had two 8 inch floppies!)
I didn’t have access to a computer after 1968 until I bought an Apple II+ in 1980. Then I used my FORTRAN skills to program in Basic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,150
385
Just more of the same nonsense. Canon's new flagship professional lens trinity doesn't mount on any of Canon's existing flagship professional bodies nor will they mount on the expected Flagship 1DX Mark III or 5D Mark IV. Those lenses with IS are something pro photgraphers have been requesting for years and they can't use them unless they commit to an R which is a significant downgrade from the pro bodies. You can talk around that fact all you like but that won't change anything. I'm not spilling any secrets here. Anybody with any sense figure all this out for themselves a long time ago.
Some people seem to find the R camera useful with RF lenses. The main limitations of the R seem to be related to the demands of action photography. Most of the new RF lenses aren't exactly geared for action photography anyway, except maybe for the upcoming 70-200.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
450
256
Some people seem to find the R camera useful with RF lenses. The main limitations of the R seem to be related to the demands of action photography. Most of the new RF lenses aren't exactly geared for action photography anyway, except maybe for the upcoming 70-200.
Yes I agree for the most part. The early releases were portrait lenses and the EF equivalents had a history of focus issues. Those make a lot of sense on an R where you are getting better critical focus using DPAF.

However, I think that the three trinity f2.8L IS Zooms are a different case. There are still a lot of top Journos and event photographers that use 1 series bodies and I bet they would love to have those IS 15-35 and 24-70 f2.8's. They are also very popular sideline lenses for indoor sports. Posters have been asking Canon for EF IS 2.8L's for years and now Canon drops them as RF's that can't be used on the pro bodies. I have the 24-70 f4 because I need IS and it's not a great lenses. I would have traded up for a 2.8L IS in a heartbeat. Now I can't because the existing R doesn't work for me.

It will probably sort itself out once Canon releases pro build mirrorless bodies. The R has fine image quality for stills but I don't think it's up to being a daily driver for servo AF use.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
Yes I agree for the most part. The early releases were portrait lenses and the EF equivalents had a history of focus issues. Those make a lot of sense on an R where you are getting better critical focus using DPAF.

However, I think that the three trinity f2.8L IS Zooms are a different case. There are still a lot of top Journos and event photographers that use 1 series bodies and I bet they would love to have those IS 15-35 and 24-70 f2.8's. They are also very popular sideline lenses for indoor sports. Posters have been asking Canon for EF IS 2.8L's for years and now Canon drops them as RF's that can't be used on the pro bodies. I have the 24-70 f4 because I need IS and it's not a great lenses. I would have traded up for a 2.8L IS in a heartbeat. Now I can't because the existing R doesn't work for me.

It will probably sort itself out once Canon releases pro build mirrorless bodies. The R has fine image quality for stills but I don't think it's up to being a daily driver for servo AF use.
Shortly after the release of more pro-oriented RF mount cameras, I'm sure Canon will release an EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS! LOL
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,577
679
Southeastern USA
Yes I agree for the most part. The early releases were portrait lenses and the EF equivalents had a history of focus issues. Those make a lot of sense on an R where you are getting better critical focus using DPAF.

However, I think that the three trinity f2.8L IS Zooms are a different case. There are still a lot of top Journos and event photographers that use 1 series bodies and I bet they would love to have those IS 15-35 and 24-70 f2.8's. They are also very popular sideline lenses for indoor sports. Posters have been asking Canon for EF IS 2.8L's for years and now Canon drops them as RF's that can't be used on the pro bodies. I have the 24-70 f4 because I need IS and it's not a great lenses. I would have traded up for a 2.8L IS in a heartbeat. Now I can't because the existing R doesn't work for me.

It will probably sort itself out once Canon releases pro build mirrorless bodies. The R has fine image quality for stills but I don't think it's up to being a daily driver for servo AF use.
I 100% agree with you about the EOS R not being suitable for action. But I'm curious why you think it would not be good for situations that call for IS...If the subject is moving around a lot, the IS helps only a little, in my experience. (Some claim not at all, but that is total nonsense. Think it through--reducing motion at one point helps reduce the total amount of motion blur in a still image. If the camera shakes AND the subject moves, the blur effect is compounded in most cases.)

What I mean is, if IS means so much to your photography, as it does to me when I'm taking portraits or detail shots, how would the R be a problem for these cases? My problem with the R is that it just doesn't offer enough versatility--it really works best for static and slow moving subjects, the ones most helped by IS.

Then again, panning IS might be kind of wasted on the current R.

Sigh. We really need a leap in EVF tech!!! In the meantime, R for portraits, dSLR's for everything?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bennymiata