Canon EOS R5 launch price will be below $4000 USD [CR3]

ronaldzimmerman.nl

I'm New Here
May 25, 2020
9
5
www.ronaldzimmerman.nl
I can’t wait to use the R5 + rumoured RF 100mm Macro L 2x. With this I don’t have to put my Raynox on the lens.
A new radio trigger and radio flash with wireless second curtain flash would complete my dream setup! Maybe a R7 for extra magnification/reach would be nice.
 

Starting out EOS R

EOS R5 - RF24-105mm F4L, RF70-200mm f2.8L
Feb 13, 2020
274
304
When I bought my 6D2, I got the 24-105mm non-L kit lens, figuring it would hold me until I accumulated an arsenal of lenses to cover that range. I have been pleasantly surprised with how useful it is as an all-purpose lens. I have not missed having the extra stop or two at the upper end. With the low noise at higher ISOs I don't feel a need for fast lenses except when I want to blur backgrounds, etc. Besides saving a few bucks, I thought maybe the STM lens might be a little better suited for video, except I rarely shoot video so that wasn't much of an excuse. Of course your needs and interests could be much different from mine. If I were starting over, I wouldn't hesitate to get the f/4 L version, but really have no problems with the STM as my general purpose lens. My main point is that it is such a useful focal-length range, similar to what I'm used to on my travel cameras, the G7X II and now the G5X II.
Thanks for sharing. I think your right, I had the EF 24-105mm f4 BEFORE I got the R and I was happy with that lens and still happy with the RF version. I'm thinking more and more that the type of photography I do, whilst nice to have the extra stop of the RF24-70 I'm not sure I will have the situations that need it. I have the RF 70-200MM love the background blur when at f2.8 so I'll wait to see exactly how much the R5 is and then get out and start blasting away. You never know if I get out more, I might just expand my activities that mean the 24-70 might be warranted. Gives me more chance to save the pennies lol.
 

SteveC

R5
Sep 3, 2019
1,225
994
I think the UK is on a bunch of islands off the continent, so it depends upon what you mean by "Europe." They used to have holdings on the mainland, but that was a lot wars ago.
They still do, down at the southern end of Spain: Gibraltar. (But I know you were probably thinking of France, with the last such holding being Calais.)

In any case there's this tendency to assign every island to a continent. Iceland to Europe (even though part of it is geologically on the North American plate), Hawaii to North America (not even remotely true geologically, but politically it makes some sense), and so on.

There seems to be a trend towards assigning New Guinea to Australia, now, and not to Asia, which makes a good deal of sense. One could argue for assigning everything in Indonesia east of the Wallace line, but I doubt that will happen.
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
5,055
3,147
Irving, Texas
What is the best alternative to the Canon R5/R6. Something less pricey but good enough for portrait photography.
Would love to get the R5 but a prize of guessed 4299€ but the insane cost of the R glass makes photography extremely less fun for me.
Love to have the best but this is in sum too much - as a hobby.
Full frame in a small studio would be preferred but any input is welcome.
For portraits, the R is great. Same sensor as the 5D Mark IV and less money... with the added benefit of eye-AF. It works perfectly with EF lenses too. I've not used an RP, but I am sure it would also be great.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Richard Anthony

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
564
627
For portraits, the R is great. Same sensor as the 5D Mark IV and less money... with the added benefit of eye-AF. It works perfectly with EF lenses too. I've not used an RP, but I am sure it would also be great.
The RP is great for portraits, of course. If missing focus bothers you immensely (as it does, me), the RP has terrific autofocus that's useful for both still and moving subjects.

EDIT: Other things about the RP: Good handling, easy to operate, and the sensor is okay :D
 
Last edited:

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
I agree with you its a niche camera. But the niche is exactly the subject poster was interested in and can be had for half or less than the price of a 5DIV which may be more versatile but that does come at a cost.

I liked all the other suggestions but considering the price, the fact that its tailor made for studio work, and is very affordable someone needed to at least suggest it as an option for the poster.

Of course, I made no assumptions on the hardware for post processing, but an upgrade to a better chip in your laptop or desktop, and memory are some of the cheaper investments for a photography enthusiast.
Oh I agree, it definitely would fit the narrow scope of the poster's stated use case. I guess I was extrapolating a bit and thinking any hobbyist who spends $3K on a camera kit will want to step out of the studio with it as well; or at least I would. Even as a pro I try not to buy anything that will not work equally well on location as well (i.e. most of my studio strobes can be battery powered and I use them all the time for location shoots as well).
 

cayenne

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 28, 2012
2,310
312
What is the best alternative to the Canon R5/R6. Something less pricey but good enough for portrait photography.
Would love to get the R5 but a prize of guessed 4299€ but the insane cost of the R glass makes photography extremely less fun for me.
Love to have the best but this is in sum too much - as a hobby.
Full frame in a small studio would be preferred but any input is welcome.
You know...

You could be like many/most of us I"m guessing that will get one of the new "R" cameras and continue to shoot our perfectly good EF glass on there with the adapter.

You don't have to switch to RF glass just because you get a R camera.....

HTH,

C
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quackator

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,613
513
Davidson, NC
They still do, down at the southern end of Spain: Gibraltar. (But I know you were probably thinking of France, with the last such holding being Calais.)
Oops, I forgot Gibraltar. And actually I was thinking back post Norman invasion. “King of France” was part of the English king’s title long after there was any territorial reality. That was before the U.K., I realize.

Then there are the Faulklands.
 
May 27, 2020
6
5
Canon 5DmkIV was $3499 at time of release in 2016.
Accounting for cumulative inflation of 6.8% that would be $3,738.89 today*.

But inflation can't be the only indicator, because the 5D mkIII was also $3499 at release in 2012. That would give it a value of $3,908.46 in 2020*.

Going all the way back to the mkII, it had the bargain price of $2699.99 at release in 2008. That would be $3,215.23 in 2020*.

So we are all over the map as far as what a 5D typically nets.

So Canon can do one of several things:

A) Keep the recent tradition and price it at $3499.99 like the previous 4 & 3 iterations.
B) Tack on inflation and round up price at $3799,99
C) Reason that the upgrades in specs and technology are so incredibly significant that they can push it all the way to $3999.99 and still boast that they kept it under $4k.

Some other thoughts. I bought a 5DmkIV a few months before the EOS R was announced. So I weighed heavily "upgrading" so shortly after buying the 5DIV. There were so many similarities, that it made no sense to switch so early. Same sensor, identical IQ, same Dual Pixel AF system and the tradeoffs did not give me a big enough reason to switch. Like trading dual card slots for a variangle screen, or superior weather sealing for access to the wonderful, albeit limited, RF lens lineup. What was noticeable is that with all that "equivalence" I struggled with, the EOS R was significantly cheaper than the 5DIV. Like almost a thousand dollar difference. Today, that price for the EOS R is even more way down. So maybe there's something to be said about manufacturing cost for a mirrorless system being significantly lower than for a DSLR. Maybe that's why for all the incredible spec jumps, they can still keep the cost at a "5D level?"

So maybe there's another option?

D) Manufacturing cost keep the price nice and tidy and maybe accounting for an economy in shambles we get it at a jaw dropping $3299.99. After all that would put it right around the cost of the last Canon camera that was a generational game-changer: the 5DmkII.

*inflation calculated using https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I made a quick chart showing the price with inflation (using https://www.usinflationcalculator.com). Yellow highlighted cell is the launch price and shows what the price is with inflation adjustments by the year of other releases.

1590689612648.png


1590689732376.png


Thing to note is, often times, especially with technology/electronic items, the trend does not follow the inflation model.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Michael Clark

dcm

Good or bad - it's not the gear.
Apr 18, 2013
828
184
So how do you answer a ridiculous comment like "rip off Britain" without pointing out the different way taxes are listed on prices and the different things you get for those taxes?

Or more succinctly, how do you point out valid reasoning for quite different pricing structures worldwide without touching on broader issues? Or, how do you get people to stop comparing apples to oranges?

I was answering an often stated falsehood and have gotten 30 40 odd likes for doing it, I have been doing that all the time I have been here and I won't stop or apologize. Next time it will be about how "sensors with more pixels make more noise", or "a pro would never use that it's only got one card slot", "DR doesn't change with sensor size", "depth of field is constant and doesn't change with output size/viewing distance", "you can't handhold a camera with more than 35mp", "equivalence is a fallacy because you don't have to change iso", " there is no point in those MP because the lenses can't resolve it"..........
Might I suggest we compare pre-tax prices so we can avoid the whole tax/government discussion. In the US that means the listed price. Elsewhere we subtract the VAT/etc. tax from the listed price. For 17% VAT you would multiple the list price by 0.8547. Then you can apply exchange rates for comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,613
513
Davidson, NC
You know...

You could be like many/most of us I"m guessing that will get one of the new "R" cameras and continue to shoot our perfectly good EF glass on there with the adapter.

You don't have to switch to RF glass just because you get a R camera.....

HTH,

C
But there are probably also others like me for whom the main (or only in my case) reason to buy an R-series camera would be so I could use R lenses. But since those lenses tend to exceed my price range and don’t meet any perceived unmet needs on my part, I don’t really fit the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,386
260
Thanks, RandomOrbits, for your comments comparing the RF 24-70 f2.8 and RF 24-105 f4, as I am one of many who would have to decide which one (if any) to get. But I'd also like to ask you what you think about the upcoming RF 70-135 f2 option being thrown into the mix? Assuming you have the RF 24-70 f2.8, then would adding the RF 70-200 f2.8 still be the best 2 lens solution for you - versus adding the RF 70-135 f2 and also adding (or not getting) the 70-200 f2.8? :unsure: There's a lot of great options, but at a high enough cost that it may be hard to justify getting all 3. What do you think?
That is an interesting question, but I think the more relevant question is what is best telezoom to pick amongst the currently available RF 70-200 f/2.8 versus the upcoming RF 70-135 /f2 and the RF 100-500. The answer is going to depend on what other lenses you have in your kit and how you use your lenses. Between the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 100-400 II, I used the 100-400 II more because my kids play soccer and for travel. The 70-200 was primarily a portrait and indoor lens. However, I got the 70-200 first and I used it for everything (even with the extenders). It's only when there multiple options to choose from that the 70-200 got less use.

I see a similar scenario playing out for the RF ecosystem. The RF 70-200 may be the best single lens choice, and it's reduction in stored length and weight makes it more portable than its EF counterpart (but it doesn't accept TCs anymore). However, if you plan on getting the 100-500 anyway, then the 70-200 becomes less important. Like the RF 28-70, I see the RF 70-135 as more of a niche lens. I'd expect it to be similar to the 70-200 in weight/size, so you're trading focal length range for a larger max aperture. The scenario that I'd make that trade most is for portraits and indoor stuff. Where the 70-135 f/2 gets interesting is that it's getting to max apertures of primes. The current L 135mm prime is f/2, and the RF 70-135 will get you there, so I can see Canon selling more RF 70-135s because people may use it like the 135 f/2L only with the flexibility of zooming. It'll be interesting to see if Canon releases a RF prime at 135mm. If so, I'd expect the max aperture to be faster the f/2, but what is the trade between aperture and cost? Sigma is at f/1.8 and that's only 1/3 of a stop, so I can't see that as being a big differentiator between a prime and a zoom. If Canon tries to go to f/1.4, then it'll cost a lot more (similar front element size to the EF 200 f/2 and EF 300 f/2.8).

In your case, if you're restricted by budget to a 2 zoom L lens solution, then it'll be based on the max focal length you need and get less expensive EF f/1.8 prime to adapt for portraits/indoors.
 

BakaBokeh

EOS 90D
May 16, 2020
136
228
Excellent points all, I could definitely see a possible scenario where mirrorless is cheaper to produce than the mirror. And finally, another forum member who takes into account inflation. One fact you missed though is currency exchange rates. Depending on where Canon sources the parts and the current and forecast exchange rates even they could affect what Canon is able to sell this camera at while remaining profitable.

I still think they will debut the body at $3999.00 then drop rapidly within the following year. One factor that may keep the price higher longer than it did for the EOS R is the fact that they had to develop an all new sensor, with the EOS R they were able to reuse the 5DIV's sensor so their R&D costs weren't as great.
That's true, but that can also said of other aspects of the R5. The research & development that went to the R body and RF mount system were borne by the EOS R. The R&D that went into the Digic X processor were borne by the 1DXmkIII. But still, the spec boost is so huge, I tend to agree with you that they can justify the $3999 price tag. And there is certainly precedence for the price drop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: herein2020

SteveC

R5
Sep 3, 2019
1,225
994
Oops, I forgot Gibraltar. And actually I was thinking back post Norman invasion. “King of France” was part of the English king’s title long after there was any territorial reality. That was before the U.K., I realize.

Then there are the Faulklands.
Yeah, Calais was the very tail end of that whole Norman French Claim To The Throne business. As for the Falklands--well, the UK has a whole raft of overseas possessions still, mostly minor islands (the British Indian Ocean Territory being just one example). As do France, Spain and Portugal. Spain still owns a few coastal towns on the African Mediterranean coast, too. (And the US has both inhabited territories and uninhabited dots all over the Pacific, too.) France still has St. Pierre and Miquelon, just miles off Newfoundland.
 

BakaBokeh

EOS 90D
May 16, 2020
136
228
I made a quick chart showing the price with inflation (using https://www.usinflationcalculator.com). Yellow highlighted cell is the launch price and shows what the price is with inflation adjustments by the year of other releases.

View attachment 190628

View attachment 190629

Thing to note is, often times, especially with technology/electronic items, the trend does not follow the inflation model.
What blows me away by that is what an amazing deal a 5DmkII was at launch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

SteveC

R5
Sep 3, 2019
1,225
994
But there are probably also others like me for whom the main (or only in my case) reason to buy an R-series camera would be so I could use R lenses. But since those lenses tend to exceed my price range and don’t meet any perceived unmet needs on my part, I don’t really fit the situation.
I'm probably a bit in both camps. I certainly intend to use my EF lenses on this camera (as I do on my M6-II); but I'm also certainly not averse to picking up some R lenses--including one as the kit lens. The one thing I'm not sure about is whether to get the 16-35 f/4 now (as an EF) or hope they'll do something RF with it soon. [I might even spring for the f/2.8.] (And of course I might decide I want to use that lens on my M6-II, so that would have to be the EF version.)
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,613
513
Davidson, NC
I'm probably a bit in both camps. I certainly intend to use my EF lenses on this camera (as I do on my M6-II); but I'm also certainly not averse to picking up some R lenses--including one as the kit lens. The one thing I'm not sure about is whether to get the 16-35 f/4 now (as an EF) or hope they'll do something RF with it soon. [I might even spring for the f/2.8.] (And of course I might decide I want to use that lens on my M6-II, so that would have to be the EF version.)
I love the 16-35 f/4, so it is hard to go wrong with it unless you have some overarching need for the extra stop. I never have missed it. Size, weight, and money all favor the f/4. I understand that the RF 15-35 is excellent optically as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Whowe

Looking for 7D Mark ii upgrade??
Mar 4, 2020
110
113
I'm probably a bit in both camps. I certainly intend to use my EF lenses on this camera (as I do on my M6-II); but I'm also certainly not averse to picking up some R lenses--including one as the kit lens. The one thing I'm not sure about is whether to get the 16-35 f/4 now (as an EF) or hope they'll do something RF with it soon. [I might even spring for the f/2.8.] (And of course I might decide I want to use that lens on my M6-II, so that would have to be the EF version.)
I think we need to remember, even as good as RF Glass has been praised, most EF glass is still excellent and industry leading. It's not like it is a major step back. (Except for the new RF glass that has no EF equivalent, such as 28-70 f/2...) So it can and will fill a lot of needs, including people stepping up to R that can't afford to buy RF glass now and people that want to maintain flexibility with existing cameras, both dslr and M series.