Here are the USD prices for the Canon EOS R5, Canon EOS R6 and lenses


Sep 17, 2014
Looks like the Eos R or Rp could be the answer? Though, I can’t think of any 2017 cameras with specs equal to the R6?

It's funny when people take 1 single spec which was available years ago and say it's "2017 specs" while ignoring everything else.
The only camera that could rival the R6 in 2017 was the 1DX2. Maybe.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user


Jun 4, 2014
Don't think the R6 is a sports camera. For landscape/studio and at that price point the R6 will compete with the Sony A7R III, which is 2600EUR in Germany, not the A7III. The A7R III has 40mpix (vs 20) and 3.69mdot EVF (vs. unknown). DR at hi and low ISO as well as battery life are important and might be close (best case assumption IMHO).
Last edited:

2 cents

I'm New Here
Jun 18, 2020
That's a lot of coin for both cameras. They don't even have a mirror and pentaprism.....o_O.... shouldn't they be cheaper than the 5D and 6D?

Just had a good look at my trusty 5D IV, gave it a hug as it looks like we're staying together for longer than anticipated.
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users


Jun 4, 2014
That's a lot of coin for both cameras. They don't even have a mirror and pentaprism.....o_O.... shouldn't they be cheaper than the 5D and 6D?
Even though that may have been sarcasm, I think you have a point: Canon saves on manufacturing cost and does not hand that saving on to us customers...
Nov 3, 2014
All I know is that if I had 100 shares at $20/ea. ($2,000) in 1998 and never bought another share, that a 5 for 1 split made my same shares worth $10,000 today (if today's price is $20). That's quite different than saying my 100 shares (now 500 shares thanks to the split) is still worth what they were back in 1998. Not true. ;)

Other than that, I have no idea what Canon's strategy is and probably nobody here does either. You made it sound as though the stock has not grown in 20 years. That is patently false. The splits tell a different story. :) Other than that fact, I don't care. There was an additional 3 for 2 split in that time frame. So now I would have 750 shares spawned from my original 100 shares. That makes the value of my original 100 shares, had there never been a split, $15,000 ($150 each, not $20). All the chart shows is a $x share price for the day, but if my shares have multiplied thanks to splits... that makes a huge difference.

Saying the share price is the same now as twenty years ago and has not grown is not the whole story. Now, we are done.
Fundamentally incorrect. I don't know how else to say it. I'm really trying not to be a jerk about it but you are mistaken. The $20 price from 20 years ago reflects the devaluation of the shares caused by the splits. The actual share price in 1998 would not have been $20. It would have been a price multiple times higher than that based on however many times it's split since then. If it's split 5:1 since then the adjusted 1998 price would be $100 (5x$20). A split does not increase the value of your holding. You just end up with more shares but they are worth less. Maybe that's the part you're missing. It's a tool that companies use to lower their share price. Some investors don't like to buy stocks with high share prices. It's meaningless beyond that. If you look at a good chart it will indicate the splits and you will see there is no associated change in price.

That's how it works. Facts are facts. Saying something is true doesn't make it true. $2000 dollars worth of Canon shares from 20 years ago would be worth $2000 today but you would own more shares of lower value. You would, however, have received substantial dividends.
Last edited:

Sibir Lupus

EOS M6 Mark II + EOS M200
Feb 4, 2015
Great prices all around, especially for the R5 itself! :)

Too rich for my blood and for the stuff I'm shooting.

Wait till this fall and see if that M5ii with IBIS shows up for around 1350.

I'm waiting for the rumored M5 Mark II as well! :D It'll pair better with the 32mm lens (IBIS), and be the main camera for my dual camera setup for events.


Feb 14, 2018
Official Canon price from Australian Canon online store is $7099. I hoped it would be around 6k. But $7300 (with an EF-RF adapter) makes it sliiightly overpriced.
Sony A7RIV goes for $5150 with discount atm. The adapter will be around $600 AUD, still the whole system will be $1700 cheaper.

Compared to more reasonable prices in other regions, I'd say Canon AU totally sucks, I'm hugely disappointed.


Mar 17, 2020
Nice to see Canon finally making a home run with these two bodies after all those years since the 5DII! Prices are very reasonable. The R5 a little higher than hoped for, but the 6R in a very sweet spot for its price/performance. I expect Canon will sell a lot of these in spite of a difficult overall market situation. Super turn around for Canon and a boon for all photographers out there.


CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
Kentucky, USA
Well, I ordered the R5 and 100-500 and in a month or 2 I'll officially become a "Canon'er" (or whatever we're called). Now I've got some time to think about everything else that I'll immediately (or eventually) need, which is:

(I do welcome your suggestions on any of this)
* CFExpress card (high capacity as I'll only get 1, I don't keep photos on it long term)
* SD card (ditto)
* protective filter (highest quality only, as it'll never be removed unless another needs to be used, like ND or polarizer)
* all the other lenses to consider (yes, I know it's too vague to comment on)

Other than my wallet being a "lot lighter", it's been a good morning! :D
Last edited:


CR Pro
Feb 26, 2012
* protective filter (highest quality only, as it'll never be removed)

I would appreciate opinions on that as well. After Canon put all that effort into superior lens design, how do I avoid ruining it with a separate piece of glass on the front?


EOS 5D Mark IV
Nov 1, 2012
So my current shopping list:
R5 $3899
Grip: $349
Extra battery: $79
EF-Adapter: $99 for basic (or $199 with the control ring (or $399 with drop-in filter))
RF 28-70mm: ~$2600

Total $7026 - $7326 (plus tax/shipping)


What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
Compared to what? The 100-400 II with with mediocre EF 2x IQ at f/11? The EF 400 f/5.6 plus 2x at f/11 and no IS? The RF 800 at f/11? The EF 800 big white at f/5.6 and $13K? One of the other big whites plus TCs for an equally high price and heavy weight?

I'll go with the RF 100-500 + 1.4x as the most versatile option in my price range.

Don't forget one thing - at least in my case I enjoy using my 100-400L II + 1.4 on my 5D4 as well as my EOS-R, and the 100-400L II bare fits well on the 5D4, my 7D2, and my 70D.

Can't do that with the RF 100-500L. It's EOS-R only unless I buy the new body too.

Also - I would never shoot the 2X because of the hit on IQ and unless that changes for some miraculous reason with these new extenders that will be case for the 100-500L as well.

I live in the pacific northwest and light is a bitch even on a good day. Get back under these trees up here ad it doesn't matter what the sun is doing - you're working in dappled light at best. F8 @ 560 is a challenge but I've learned to make it work as best I can. F11 @ 700 might be doable on the R5 but it will cost me over $7000 to get there. For that much money I should suck it up and just go ahead with the 500mm F4 but then we get into the portability discussion.

I said UGH because I was hoping for more for the price. Sigma and Tamron do a 150-600 5.6-6.3 for $1000 or so. For nearly three times that I was hoping for a better price tag or faster glass. It seemed doable and reasonable to me.

For me, for a lens I can only use on my EOS-R, it's a bit of a let down.

I just decided I'm buying the R5 and waiting for sales on the 100-500L down the road. Or just go ahead with the freaking 500mm F4 - I have a nice gimbal - why not? I'm old and you can't take it with you.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user