Gordan Laing Review: The Canon EOS R5 for photography
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
5D4 launched at $3500. That's $3750 today. Given the advancement the R5 has over the 5D4 I'd say it's a steal.
I agree - I enjoyed it and he stayed on subject without getting bogged down in the hysteria of the masses.
Except if you shoot 8k Raw or 4k HQ for 20 to 30 mins you need to forget the camera for next 2 hours and that is definitely sounds like the best hybrid camera at the $3900 price tag
Please make it stop (moderators?). I don't when DPReview users started posting here en masse, the same group of users, the same anti-R5/anti-Canon rhetoric, with no clue of perspective. It is ruining these forums, crowding out legit criticism from real photographers and R5 users.
Surely you'd expect those advancements as a minimum anyway, rather than a 5D IV re-released at a higher cost because it's 2020? A better comparison might even be the R ($2,299 on release) come to think of it, since that really was a repackaged 5D IV. Is the R5 worth the 70% increase in cost to that due to IBIS, great AF, better ISO performance, better frame rate, better 4K, better resolution etc.? Many may well say yes, that's naturally a lot of improvements over something released less than two years ago but it's still fair to have the ticket price stop you in your tracks.
People like you are the ones who cannot do math not the ones who is calling the R5 overpriced. Compare this with price of EOS R which is basically the mirroless 5D4, then look at competition. The main justification for the price of this camera is the video specs which turned out to be BS so do your math now. If you still cannot do the math I very well understand you.
The EOS-R, aside from the sensor, is not a 5D4 replacement in any regard in my book and I own both cameras. It's a nice camera but it's no 5D4, and the 5D4 is no R5.
If you're asking me if the R5 @ $3700 is worth $1700 more than the R my answer is absolutely. Ditto if you had to pay $3899 retail. If you're asking me if the R5 is worth the same money as the 5D4 at launch my answer is absolutely and without hesitation.
I bought the 5D4 at launch and wasn't "stopped in my tracks" by the price nor was I "stopped in my tracks" to pay the same money for a drastically improved camera four years later.
If people just "can't afford it" I can understand that, but I don't agree with the idea that the camera is overpriced. Even if you remove all the video features you're paying 5D4 money for a camera that outperforms it in every single way.
It isn't "at a higher cost..." Given inflation it's roughly the same price, and it's a bargain considering there isn't a camera that comes close to its feature set and execution at any price.
Last edited:
If you follow the thread I responded to a Canon fanboy who said R5 with it's great video features like 8k RAW and 4k HQ is the best hybrid camera ever. I am simply saying it is not. I do not shoot that much video and I do not need 8k at all. Sharp 4k60 without overheating would be good enough. I am one among those made fun of Sony for overheating. To me it does not matter Canon, Nikon or Sony. I need a product that works as it should not just some marketing non sense and demand high $. I will give credit for Canon for being honest enough to put the information upfront. Sony never did that. That does not mean only Canon fanboys get to talk and anyone who not a fanboy of any company have to shut up.
Do you really speak to people like this in real life? Really?
Do you own the 5D4 and the EOS-R? I'm guessing no. I own both and I can tell you that the EOS-R, aside from the shared sensor, lags the 5D4 in almost every parameter. The autofocus does not compare. The FPS does not compare. The weather sealing and construction do not compare. I could go on but given your post history in this thread I'd have more luck talking to a real golden husky than trying to have a legitimate conversation with you.
If you truly believe that the EOS-R is a 5D4 replacement then that says more about you than it does about the value of the R5. I'll leave it at that.
Keep your next round of insults and trash talk to yourself please.
No I don't think so. Given the economic climate, unless Canon choose to artificially hold the price like they did for 5DsR this will be under $3k mark by 2021 thanksgiving (if it can hold that long). That may not be the advertised price but if you know where to get and I am not even talking grey market.
Yes I had 5D4 and EOS R. I sold them both. I sold the EOS R to buy the R5 only to be disappointed. If you keep it to yourself and I don't have to come in your way.
You had the 5D4 and EOS-R side by side and actually believe that the EOS-R was a suitable replacement for the 5D4?
Wow. Say no more. We obviously exist in different worlds.
Next time you "come in my way" please remember to bring your reality clue with you or don't bother.
Last edited:
Economic climate?
How much has the 1Dx III dropped since launch?
If you "know where to get:" why are you complaining about the retail ask for the R5? I'm nobody and I got mine for $3700 out the door.
This has been discussed a little over the years and hopefully you'll get an answer from more technically-minded people but the short answer is it's not as simple as 'raw=no processing'. The data coming from the sensor has to be preprocessed to produce a raw image. However, I gather from discussions on astrophotography that NR being applied to the raw files will be unpopular with some; it can obscure very faint data and lead to artifacts down the line when stacking multiple exposures.
So it has a higher resolution sensor, IBIS, a better AF system, and faster frame rate than the 5D4, for which it is essentially the replacement, and you think they should charge less than the release price of that camera? Justify it to yourself however you like, you're just being cheap.
Clearly Sony isn't paying its trolls enough, if they have to be this cheap.
So, if not the R5, what IS the best hybrid camera for +/- $4,000? They all seem to tilt one way or another, stills or video. I imagine the answer to this varies according to what is most important to each of us. So it’s good to have choices.
Personally I think it is the R5 but I'm a 95/5 stills shooter. Everyone has such different needs and ideas of what 'best' means that I don't think you can point at one and say 'that's the one' anymore.
For my taste the R5 is closer than anything else.
Last edited:
Normally it's not really pre-processing but formatting - the data need to be arranged, potentially compressed, headers & meta-data added etc. Raw comes even without de-bayering. The viewing/editing software will know how to interpret the raw data through the metadata. Still we can call it 'unprocessed raw'.
Noise reduction is not expected to be done on raw files.
Similar threads
- Contains 10 staff post(s)