Canon EOS R5 down to $3399 (Reg $3899)

[Canon Rumors Guy]

The Canon EOS R5 launched in 2020 for $3899, and then the planet decided it should cost more and we saw cost increases on the body. It looks like things have normalized and we’re starting to see the usual price drops on Canon cameras as they reach the second half of the life cycle. There

See full article...

 

[Chaitanya]

This took a very long time.

 

[john1970]

There are $500 instant rebates on both the Canon R5 and Canon R3. IMO this development suggests that replacement bodies (e.g., R5 MkII and R1) are due to be released / announced in Q1-Q2 2024.

 

[Maximilian]

No price changes in Germany lately.

We saw a drop in March
for the body from 4,099 € to 3,899 € and
for the kit with the RF24-105/4L from 5,799 € down to 5,299 €.
All incl. VAT.

Maybe we'll get something with slight delay here.

 

[Chaitanya]

There are $500 instant rebates on both the Canon R5 and Canon R3. IMO this development suggests that replacement bodies (e.g., R5 MkII and R1) are due to be released / announced in Q1-Q2 2024.

Its not just that there is $500 off but in US saw B&H is giving battery grip free(even with R6) with camera.

 

[IWLP]

And you can get a refurbished R5 from Canon USA for $3099. I just bought a refurbished one at work to give us the ability to shoot video with three R5s. So that'll be great when it's time to upgrade all three at the same time.

 

[LSXPhotog]

It's pretty crazy to think that the R5 is the oldest camera in my fleet now. I still remember taking delivery of it just before I left for a race in Michigan. The first day on track was just testing so I used the new mirrorless camera in place of my 1DXII and knew I was holding the future of photography. I came back from that trip and sold my 1DXII and EOS R to buy an R6 and went full speed ahead into mirrorless.

 

[Del Paso]

No price changes in Germany lately.

We saw a drop in March
for the body from 4,099 € to 3,899 € and
for the kit with the RF24-105/4L from 5,799 € down to 5,299 €.
All incl. VAT.

Maybe we'll get something with slight delay here.

There will certainly be a "Summer Promotion" within the next few weeks.

 

[AccipiterQ]

It's pretty crazy to think that the R5 is the oldest camera in my fleet now. I still remember taking delivery of it just before I left for a race in Michigan. The first day on track was just testing so I used the new mirrorless camera in place of my 1DXII and knew I was holding the future of photography. I came back from that trip and sold my 1DXII and EOS R to buy an R6 and went full speed ahead into mirrorless.

Question: Why get the R6 if you already had the R5? I love my R5 and can't imagine what advantage the R6 would have over it

 

[entoman]

"An executive at Canon recently stated that Canon isn't working on an EOS R5 Mark II, which is obviously not 100% accurate"

So, either the Canon exec is lying, or the R5 replacement won't be called "R5 Mkii".

If the latter is the case, it will likely be a major new product, rather than the "incremental evolution" that I was expecting.

 

[neuroanatomist]

"An executive at Canon recently stated that Canon isn't working on an EOS R5 Mark II, which is obviously not 100% accurate"

Does anyone have a source for that statement, other than this post? That really doesn't seem like something any Canon executive would say (or be allowed to say).

 

[Premetheus]

Question: Why get the R6 if you already had the R5? I love my R5 and can't imagine what advantage the R6 would have over it.

Lower resolution allows for faster work flow, cheaper media, cheaper computers, no need for special card readers or expensive cards. R5 files take two a half times longer to process on the same computer.
Drawing Full size previews, active tasks and export are much smoother with R6 files.
In this case, lower res in better. I'd actually prefer the R6 sensor in a R5 body. I picked R6 for these reasons. No need for more than 20mp in my line of work.

 

[bbasiaga]

Lower resolution allows for faster work flow, cheaper media, cheaper computers, no need for special card readers or expensive cards. R5 files take two a half times longer to process on the same computer.
Drawing Full size previews, active tasks and export are much smoother with R6 files.
In this case, lower res in better. I'd actually prefer the R6 sensor in a R5 body. I picked R6 for these reasons. No need for more than 20mp in my line of work.

Same for me. At the time of release, the body was $1300 more, and CFe cards were ridiculously expensive. I couldn't think of a single reason to spend up that high for the MP I didn't need. I shoot mainly youth sports now. R6 is plenty enough for that. Was never limited by my 5D3 before, and the R6 is basically the same res but provides cleaner images and better low light, and much faster.

I do think of an R5 as a second camera now that used prices are under $3k. Would be nice for higher res photos hiking etc, but that's a once per year or less trip for me. I may do it someday. Or if the R5II is stacked and not as expensive as an R3 maybe then. But R6 and R6II are really amazing cameras for most uses.

-Brian

 

[neuroanatomist]

Same for me. At the time of release, the body was $1300 more, and CFe cards were ridiculously expensive. I couldn't think of a single reason to spend up that high for the MP I didn't need. I shoot mainly youth sports now. R6 is plenty enough for that. Was never limited by my 5D3 before, and the R6 is basically the same res but provides cleaner images and better low light, and much faster.

I'm not opposed to having more MP, but it's not a major decision driver for me. I prefer integrated grip bodies for ergonomics, which I why the 1D X remained my primary camera until the R3 came out, even though I had the EOS R. With current Canon bodies, AF performance is no longer a big differentiator (yes, the R3 has a slight edge over the others for fast action but the differential is nowhere near what it was a few years ago). I'm quite happy with the 24 MP sensors in my R3 and R8.

 

[Lt Colonel]

Does anyone have a source for that statement, other than this post? That really doesn't seem like something any Canon executive would say (or be allowed to say).

I agree. That doesn't sound like something Canon Corp. would express whether true or not.

 

[amorse]

Kind of a weird statement to make in saying that they're not working on a replacement. I mean, if they actually said that, I'd have to assume that their intent with the comment was to keep sales moving on the current R5 and prevent being left with unsold inventory, which may align with some of the current sales on the R5. If Canon was truly not working on an R5 replacement after 3 years, I'd see that as a worrisome revelation. I have to assume that they don't complete the design/manufacture/release process in a short period, and if they hadn't started yet, then who knows when a new body would be released. I half expected them to release an R5ii sooner rather than later to give it the updated hot shoe if nothing else.

 

[entoman]

I'm not opposed to having more MP, but it's not a major decision driver for me. I prefer integrated grip bodies for ergonomics, which I why the 1D X remained my primary camera until the R3 came out, even though I had the EOS R. With current Canon bodies, AF performance is no longer a big differentiator (yes, the R3 has a slight edge over the others for fast action but the differential is nowhere near what it was a few years ago). I'm quite happy with the 24 MP sensors in my R3 and R8.

I crept up the ladder to 50MP when I got my 5DSR, but found the images too noisy at ISO 1600, the burst speed was very slow, and storage and processing times were an issue. Later I dropped down to the 30MP of the 5DMkiv which produced nicer images. At the time I considered 30MP to be the "sweet spot".

Then I jumped on the MILC bandwagon. I decided to get the R5, which produces nicer images and allows for heavier cropping, which I need for wildlife as I can't afford (or deal with the weight) of big white primes. Noise isn't a problem even at ISO 3200 or 6400, thanks to Topaz. Storage isn't a problem either, as I constantly revisit and cull older shots, which helps to keep storage my needs lowish. It also reminds me of how poor some of my early shots were, thereby encouraging me to reach a higher standard overall.

I don't really feel a need for more than the 45MP of the R5, but having got used to it, I wouldn't want to drop down to 30 or 24MP again, although I completely understand the reasons why other folk find it adequate. I can't think of any reason why I'd pay $5K or more for a "R5s" or "R5ii", let alone an "R1". The R5 ain't perfect, but it would take one hell of a camera to get me to upgrade.

 

[AlanF]

Lower resolution allows for faster work flow, cheaper media, cheaper computers, no need for special card readers or expensive cards. R5 files take two a half times longer to process on the same computer.
Drawing Full size previews, active tasks and export are much smoother with R6 files.
In this case, lower res in better. I'd actually prefer the R6 sensor in a R5 body. I picked R6 for these reasons. No need for more than 20mp in my line of work.

If you don’t need more than 20 Mpx in your line of work that’s fine - get yourself a 20 Mpx camera. Many of do benefit from more Mpx so don’t deny us what we want.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you don’t need more than 20 Mpx in your line of work that’s fine - get yourself a 20 Mpx camera. Many of do benefit from more Mpx so don’t deny us what we want.

I didn't see any denial in the reply by @Premetheus, just a personal reason for choosing an R6 over an R5.

 

[AlanF]

I didn't see any denial in the reply by @Premetheus, just a personal reason for choosing an R6 over an R5.

This is a thread about the R5 so why bother to say you don’t need its resolution? It’s irrelevant