There will not be an EOS 5D Mark V [CR2]

[Bert63]

What would be the 'learn to adjust to mirrorless'? It would be nice to list these.

Liked this post AND wanted to post and say your photography in your signature link is outstanding. It made my morning. Keep shooting bro, I'm going to go throw all my gear off the roof.

 

[mjg79]

You raise good points. But would you pay a premium for the DSLR vs mirrorless given its other limitations?

A fair question. I don't know the answer really. It would depend a bit on what they offer.

If they simple shoehorn the R5 sensor into the 5DIV body and tweak a few things, the situation you highlight would arise, it might make people resent paying more as SLRs do cost more to manufacture. Having said that the sensor R&D costs have already been spent.

What I would prefer is Canon to take the A99II approach, using a pellicle mirror which would allow a "best of both worlds" approach as EVF tech is now so good I think the need for an OVF is reducing. If that was the case I could accept a higher price if it meant I could seamlessly use my EF glass for many years.

I suspect if a 5DV ever comes it will be more along the lines of the 5DIV with the new sensor so yeah I do agree with you that that would present a marketing headache. Maybe they will simply give it a year, let the R5 get the glory this year and then next year give us a 5DV.

I think this sort of financial and customer based discussion will be what drives Canon rather than the sort of technical based discussion on here. Put simply, do those who have a giant collection of EF glass want to 1) replace it with RF glass? Or 2) use an adapter for some to mix and match on an RF mount camera? Or 3) prefer to buy another EF mount camera to carry on as before.

If you just read the internet forums then one would think groups 1 and 2 would be 90% of the population! But to the average user? I don't know. There are more EF mount lenses out there than RF mount lenses. That will still be the case in 5 years and probably 10 years from now. Will canon really not give those millions of people a new EF mount camera? I've tried the adapter for my R and found it worked well but I would prefer to not adapt. Right now my attitude is I want to keep my EF glass, especially as for example with the 24-70/2.8 there is no big difference in image quality or size/weight whether EF or RF mount, why should I buy the more expensive newer lens? But maybe Canon is smarter than me haha - maybe if they flat out refuse to give us another 5D then I will crack and buy all new RF lenses! I can't claim I would go to Sony instead as I am a Canon fanatic so maybe they will call my bluff!

 

[degos]

No-one's making you buy. The mushrooming that's going on does indeed colour my attitudes to the companies doing it (Canon is not the only one) and make me less likely to buy their products. One option is not to buy *anyone's* camera products.

Not buying is a good strategy, but usually a point comes where it's necessary to upgrade or replace and the lack of information plays into the manufacturers' hands.

And conversely they drop little nuggets of information like 'no 5D5' just to give the market a nudge. It's all so cynical and deliberate.

 

[unfocused]

...as SLRs do cost more to manufacture...

Not picking on you, but I would like to see this line of reasoning retired once and for all.

First, no one has any proof this is true.

Second, there are no real world examples of this. The lowest cost Rebel and the lowest cost M that I can find are exactly the same price.

Third, even if it were true, the mirror assembly can hardly be a major factor in the total cost of a camera if Canon can make and sell DSLRs for $400.

Most importantly though, actual manufacturing costs are just one small consideration in retail pricing. People act like Canon is some guy in his garage, adding 50% to the cost of his parts and labor and selling them in the neighborhood.

Canon is a massive, multinational business. The embedded costs of thousands of other factors have far more to do with the price consumers pay than the mere cost of any single component. If anyone ever picks up an actual print version of National Geographic anymore, they'd see the full page Canon ad in every issue that by itself costs more than any difference between manufacturing costs of DSLRs and Mirrorless could ever be.

 

[unfocused]

I think the worst part of this whole rumor is that, if true, it means that there will be nothing interesting on Canon Rumors for the next year. Wake me up when 2021 is over.

 

[masterpix]

I hope you were told wrongly, but for some reason I don't think they will make the 5D-V. they do push to mirrorless, they might develop an OVF for the R5 to complement that feature for those who prefer the OVF over EVF. The qustion that OVF fans live with is: where do I get the cash to buy the 1Dx? Although the R5 is very apealing, still the EVF is the "deal breaker" for "old fashion" that like to SEE the light from the other side of the lens.

 

[mjg79]

Not picking on you, but I would like to see this line of reasoning retired once and for all.

First, no one has any proof this is true.

Second, there are no real world examples of this. The lowest cost Rebel and the lowest cost M that I can find are exactly the same price.

Third, even if it were true, the mirror assembly can hardly be a major factor in the total cost of a camera if Canon can make and sell DSLRs for $400.

Most importantly though, actual manufacturing costs are just one small consideration in retail pricing. People act like Canon is some guy in his garage, adding 50% to the cost of his parts and labor and selling them in the neighborhood.

Canon is a massive, multinational business. The embedded costs of thousands of other factors have far more to do with the price consumers pay than the mere cost of any single component. If anyone ever picks up an actual print version of National Geographic anymore, they'd see the full page Canon ad in every issue that by itself costs more than any difference between manufacturing costs of DSLRs and Mirrorless could ever be.

That's all very logical. I was guilty of just repeating something I often see online to the point where I assumed it would be true. Of course the whole thing with the complexity of manufacturing, regulation and economies of scale often makes it impossible for the average man to work out the "true cost" of things.

 

[Bert63]

I don't own an RF body, but I'm curious to see what people use control rings the most for.

In my mind, since I am largely an aperture priority shooter on my 5D3, I have fast dedicated dials for aperture and exposure comp. I also have a joystick for the AF point. So I'm guessing I'd use that control ring for the fourth most common thing I adjust on the fly. Either ISO or min shutter speed (when shooting in Auto ISO) certainly come to mind as potential candidates.

- A

I use mine for ISO, and I use the slider bar (which I'm alone in liking) for changing focus zones.

 

[AEWest]

I hope you were told wrongly, but for some reason I don't think they will make the 5D-V. they do push to mirrorless, they might develop an OVF for the R5 to complement that feature for those who prefer the OVF over EVF. The qustion that OVF fans live with is: where do I get the cash to buy the 1Dx? Although the R5 is very apealing, still the EVF is the "deal breaker" for "old fashion" that like to SEE the light from the other side of the lens.

I highly doubt there will some kind of Franken-camera from Canon. It will be either DSLR or mirrorless.

 

[chik0240]

I hope you were told wrongly, but for some reason I don't think they will make the 5D-V. they do push to mirrorless, they might develop an OVF for the R5 to complement that feature for those who prefer the OVF over EVF. The qustion that OVF fans live with is: where do I get the cash to buy the 1Dx? Although the R5 is very apealing, still the EVF is the "deal breaker" for "old fashion" that like to SEE the light from the other side of the lens.

actually seeing the light than the monitor is a huge deal to eye health, believe me looking at a monitor for hours with high concentration will make your glasses thick quick

 

[Sporgon]

This follows, except that Canon have updated the 5D line every 3-4 years since it began in 2005. The Mark IV came out in 2016. Now it's 2020, and we have no Mark IV, but we do have an R5. This implies that there is no Mark V coming.

No, it implies that something has entered the stage which has upset the normal four year refresh cycle - the R5. At the time of those four year cycles there wasn't another "5" , now there is. The 5DIV is more than capable of running a six year cycle. As I said earlier, Canon did publicly state the EF was to continue. Without the 5 series that would be a pretty hollow promise. I guess hard-nosed Canon may try to push us 5 series DSLR users into the 1D camp, but it wouldn't work with me, unless the 1D series became modular like the original EOS 1 film cameras.

 

[Deleted member 68328]

You could make that argument for the rest of your life - at what point do you stop?

When the R9 comes out with a 182MP noiseless sensor and 150 FPS you could say the same thing then. Just one more 'overlap'...

Uh??? Nonsense.
To my knowledge, it doesn't happen so often that there's a whole new system...

 

[davidhfe]

60fps and 120fps of what, your monitor refresh rate or what a game can deliver?
If the game delivers say 120fps consistently, your perception is limited by the monitor refresh rate, but more by biology and how human eye retina works. So you'll see a huge difference between 30fps and 60fps, but much less of that between 60 and 120.

Also 120 fps give less input lag than 60 that's why hardcore gamers like it.

However when the game internal frame rate is irregular (which happens a lot), 120fps smooth out the irregularities better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

But it's not the case for the photo camera: there's no irregularities/ hiccups in the processing pipeline as it has nothing else to do, just that job. Except after pressing the shutter button.

Nyquist is about then information needed to accurately reconstruct a band limited analog signal. And most of those gaming monitors are variable refresh now anyways.

Anyways, the human eye can recognize shapes flashed at 1/200th of a second. Stop thinking of the brain/human perception like a computer—it’s way more complicated. A 120fps 6mp EVF is not at human perception limits.

 

[Steve Dmark2]

In my opinion there will be no single digit canon DSLR anymore. 1D, 5D, 7D, 6D all buried. About the xxxD and xxD it depends on how Canon treats their M system and how they make successors for the RP. But they will stick around for ~two more years.

Cheers

 

[Colorado]

actually seeing the light than the monitor is a huge deal to eye health, believe me looking at a monitor for hours with high concentration will make your glasses thick quick

Just an FYI that's a misnomer. Old CRT monitors had an image projected from the back (the tube) onto a transparent screen. So you your eye was focusing on an image on the front of the monitor while simultaneously looking through the transparent screen to the back of the monitor. This was the major source of eye strain and other "I look at a monitor for 8+ hours a day" issues.

LCD (and OLED) displays are not transparent so they don't have this effect on the eye when focusing. There are issues caused by looking at an LCD display for extended periods but it isn't the same as with old picture tube monitors.

 

[scyrene]

But why would you pay MORE for a camera that could only take EF lenses, has inferior AF, and no IBIS?

The post I quoted said that the new DSLR would cost more than the R5. Even if I wanted a DSLR, the limitations means to me that the camera should cost less than the mirrorless, not more.

Depends entirely on how much one values the things they prefer in DSLRs. The thinking behind making a 5D5 more expensive than the R5 is to tempt people across to the new system whilst retaining both options. The other approaches would be, offer only mirrorless, or offer a 5D5 at the same or a lower price but without certain key features, like IBIS. Any of these approaches could be sensible, we just don't know the strategy.

 

[BeenThere]

Just an FYI that's a misnomer. Old CRT monitors had an image projected from the back (the tube) onto a transparent screen. So you your eye was focusing on an image on the front of the monitor while simultaneously looking through the transparent screen to the back of the monitor. This was the major source of eye strain and other "I look at a monitor for 8+ hours a day" issues.

LCD (and OLED) displays are not transparent so they don't have this effect on the eye when focusing. There are issues caused by looking at an LCD display for extended periods but it isn't the same as with old picture tube monitors.

Close. Old tube monitors had an electron gun that shot electrons in a line scan fashion onto phosphors that were on the rear of the tube screen. It was the excited phosphor that was visible to a viewer. Color screens had three guns and three phosphors (RGB).

 

[amorse]

I think the worst part of this whole rumor is that, if true, it means that there will be nothing interesting on Canon Rumors for the next year. Wake me up when 2021 is over.

I don't know - I'm still pretty curious about the previously rumoured high resolution body - that'll keep me coming back. Also, there was the note in the rumour that there may be development for something to appease OVF/DSLR-demanding users. If the 5D is done and the 1DX III is already out, then I don't know what could be released to appease those users. I'll be curious to see where that goes, if anywhere.

 

[RBSfphoto]

I agree with you to an extent, though some might quibble over the term "perform." The benefits of using an EF lens on the R include the near WYSIWYG exposure, the better AF for static/barely moving subjects (which includes the enhanced AI Servo making f/1.2 easy now), and, for those so inclined, the excellent alignment triangles for manual focusing.

There are two negatives, however, that might fall under the term "perform." Most obviously, the ergonomics. The size and weight of the R, combined with the extra length given to lenses by the adapater, do make a significant difference in how certain lenses handle. Personally, I switched to the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS because, on the R with the adapter, I could not hold it properly in portrait mode. Of course this affects different people in different ways, but ergonomics are assoicated with performance.

The more subtle performance issue relates to High-Speed display, which Canon says "is more responsive, making it easier to follow fast-moving subjects." High-Speed display is only available for RF lenses on the EOS R. (Page 149, User Guide) Will this be the same on the new bodies? If not, will better processing make up for it to a significant degree?

first I really have heard about high speed display and does it really make a difference in real life and not just in the specs? I played around with my rf 24-105 and my ef 24-105 today and too be perfectly honest I could not see a difference in the display? if it is there it is so small as to not be really noticeable to me Have you been able to actually see what it means in real life?

 

[davidhfe]

Just an FYI that's a misnomer. Old CRT monitors had an image projected from the back (the tube) onto a transparent screen. So you your eye was focusing on an image on the front of the monitor while simultaneously looking through the transparent screen to the back of the monitor. This was the major source of eye strain and other "I look at a monitor for 8+ hours a day" issues.

LCD (and OLED) displays are not transparent so they don't have this effect on the eye when focusing. There are issues caused by looking at an LCD display for extended periods but it isn't the same as with old picture tube monitors.

CRTs weren't transparent—they had a layer of phosphor on the glass that rendered the front of the tube opaque. Otherwise wouldn't you have been able to see the ray gun apparatus in the back of the tube?

But seriously, folks, the amount of random applications of physics being applied here to tell people their perception is incorrect is staggering. OVFs are clearly different than EVFs. There is a real, measurable difference. With a difference means that there will be preferences, so let not crap random physics nuggets on people in order to discredit their preferences.