Gordan Laing Review: The Canon EOS R5 for photography

[oaks]

I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.

 

[1D4]

"Oh, and I never experienced any overheating on the R5 when shooting still photos, even during long bursts on a hot day". There you go. Another reviewer who didn't encounter overheating just shooting stills, like the trolls and Sony fanboys would want everyone to believe.

 

[Deleted member 384473]

I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.

Give it a few months.

 

[1D4]

I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.

5D4 launched at $3499. The R5 should be that price in another 6 or so months.

 

[Bert63]

I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.

I paid $3700 with no tax.

A 5D4 cost $3500 at launch. Factoring inflation, I paid less for my R5 that I did for my 5D4.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

that makes zero sense, a raw file is not completely raw? sure, ok

That's what Bill Claff says (creator of photonstophotos).

Canon EOS Noise Reduction (NR) for Different Drive/Shutter Modes: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

 

[ericjon23]

still better than the a7r4 and a7siii combined

 

[mpmark]

That's what Bill Claff says (creator of photonstophotos).

Canon EOS Noise Reduction (NR) for Different Drive/Shutter Modes: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

that has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that a RAW file is not entirely a RAW file, you are confusing things. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Raw files are never completely raw. NR is applied to every pixel, and the charge readout is measured and converted to a tiff image file in a CR-2 or CR-3 wrapper. You are not seeing direct charge readings from each half of a sensor pixel.

 

[nikkito]

Finally!!!
Still waiting for my pre-ordered camera

 

[Kane Clements]

These reviews always make me want to spend money....

I was convinced the R6 would be the right entry point for me in to the mirrorless realm. But these R5 reviews are tempting. I need to see some more R6 reviews to change my mind back! Its more financially my speed too.

-Brian

I was pretty set on the R6. Looking at the comparison images testing IOS in Gordon Laing's review the R6 is somewhere about R and RP. The R5 produced better quality images. To my eyes anyway. I already have an RP so I would be paying for IBIS, eye detect and burst speed.

I think the R5 is a camera that people will keep longer than the R6.

 

[leadin2]

I was pretty set on the R6. Looking at the comparison images testing IOS in Gordon Laing's review the R6 is somewhere about R and RP. The R5 produced better quality images. To my eyes anyway. I already have an RP so I would be paying for IBIS, eye detect and burst speed.

I think the R5 is a camera that people will keep longer than the R6.

I’m also set on R6 and I thought the image quality looks worse than R or RP in that video. R5 images really look good. Was hoping that R6 was around 20’ish megapixel before the announcement. Having said that, the features introduced in these 2 bodies are really what we are paying for, and they are what we have been waiting for, just a little longer.

 

[bbasiaga]

I’m also set on R6 and I thought the image quality looks worse than R or RP in that video. R5 images really look good. Was hoping that R6 was around 20’ish megapixel before the announcement. Having said that, the features introduced in these 2 bodies are really what we are paying for, and they are what we have been waiting for, just a little longer.

I'd be moving up to the R6 from a 5DIII, so there is significant improvement in DR, plus the burst speed and AF improvements and a bunch of video features I will only rarely use. And I'd only be losing 3MP. So it seems like its still a reasonable upgrade. Then maybe I could pick up a used 5DS for resolution. The prices on those are not too bad. I could get them both for just more than an R5....

 

[Deleted member 384473]

still better than the a7r4 and a7siii combined

For stills photography, without a doubt.

 

[Deleted member 384473]

I'd be moving up to the R6 from a 5DIII, so there is significant improvement in DR, plus the burst speed and AF improvements and a bunch of video features I will only rarely use. And I'd only be losing 3MP. So it seems like its still a reasonable upgrade. Then maybe I could pick up a used 5DS for resolution. The prices on those are not too bad. I could get them both for just more than an R5....

Huge upgrade! The AF on these models is insane. RF glass, if you choose to invest, are fun to use. Hope you enjoy whatever you get!

 

[deleteme]

Here's a chart showing the dynamic range compared to other cameras. The R5 is excellent. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Looks very nice in comparison to Sony and Nikon but in real life I have not seen a struggle with the DR of my R or mkIV.

 

[deleteme]

That's a decent review, although I was surprised with noise comparison made on jpegs. It's basically useless.

The real issue on noise at high ISOs is that fact of underexposure of the subject basically because the light is crap.
I have shot noise free 3200 ISO images in good light and have noisy 200 ISO files that need a lot of shadow lifting.
Th NR that seems to be going on makes the demo pointless. I can also add NR in post.

 

[quilatoo]

The perfect hit-rate at both 12fps and 20fps with AI Servo is genuinely amazing. Older and third party lenses hitting 8fps (saw another video suggesting they were actually getting 9-10fps from a 70-200 II) isn't as much of a concern if it can also guarantee 99% of shots still being in focus.

I paid $3700 with no tax.

A 5D4 cost $3500 at launch. Factoring inflation, I paid less for my R5 that I did for my 5D4.

Read you loud and clear: wait until it's readily available for at least 5% off of the RRP.

 

[goldenhusky]

still better than the a7r4 and a7siii combined

you mean in terms of heat production? that is for sure

 

[goldenhusky]

No, the measurebation is on Canon's part for messing with RAW in order to come out better than Sony in NR comparisons.

You are assuming Sony does not do that. There is suspicion that Sony does the same. I am not denying the superiority of Sony sensors over Canon sensors in terms of dynamic range and noise performance (Except R5 which seems to be better than Sony) but whether Sony does NR or any kind of correction to their RAW file or not is an unknown. We can debate all day whether they do or don't and if they do is that true RAW or not.