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

[ahsanford]

Just chuck in the R5 sensor, and call it a day - I bet plenty would buy that!

30 x 7 = 210

210 / 45 = 4.7 fps

So maaaaaybe, but that's just a 5DS2 with less pixels and better base ISO.

Throw in the DIGIC X, IBIS and a tilty-flippy and now you are talking.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

Not surprised in the least.

 

[slclick]

As 5D users made up for the majority of higher end lens sales, they must now believe the R5 users will take over that position. A body is just one sale, the many L series pieces of glass you put in front of it is the real profit cashcow.

 

[scyrene]

I agree that sunsetting the 5D right now seems off. I had always (maybe erroneously) thought the 5D series was a big piece of Canon's bread and butter, and messing with a formula that works seems to me to be a a very un-Canon thing to do. That makes me think that if this is legit, then either Canon are truly changing philosophy or truly think that this body is a spiritual successor to the 5D series and that current 5D users will see that if they try it.

It's a huge gamble though. What if Canon's bet is off base, and those working professionals demand that OVF and will not cough up for a 1DXIII - do they look to a Nikon D850 even though it's a bit old(ish), or do they snap up some cheap 5D IVs for the next 4 years until they're ready to transition? I'm sure canon's internal numbers give insight int buying behaviour, but no-matter how you slice it, killing off the 5D for anything is a massive leap. Maybe their numbers suggested the 1D users would jump ship if that transition was too abrupt (hence the decision for another 1-series) where the 5D users were more accepting.

I need to get one of these R5's in my grubby little hands to get a real feel for this!

One thing to bear in mind also is lenses. Maybe the margins on lenses are higher? A 5D5 buyer won't be getting any RF glass, and maybe the numbers stack in such as way that this is an unacceptable outcome for Canon. Of course an R buyer doesn't need to get RF lenses, but there's a good chance most of them eventually will.

I'm guessing, however, 5-series owners buy a TON of EF glass, speedlites, transmitters, grips, etc. That's ultimately what Canon seems to be gambling here (were this to be a CR3). There's surely more money for them selling the pricier RF lenses to the 5D camp, but that's only if they migrate like obedient serfs. Some may buck and defer upgrading their bodies, run to Nikon, etc.

Finally someone mentions lenses etc. But of course a 5D4 owner looking to upgrade might not buy any new speedlights, lenses etc if they get a 5D5 because they presumably already own what they need, and if no new EF lenses are released (which is a big if), then there's nothing to upgrade to.

 

[twoheadedboy]

You argue about what you want, I’ll make the points I want.

As to your argument my point would be this, Canon don’t give a damn about yours or my photography, or indeed photography in general, they need to make money and if they can make money making more DSLR’s they will, if they don’t believe they can they won’t. It’s a simple and obvious unemotional financial decision that we as individual customers have no say in. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a 5D V, I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t.

It's not about what "I" think, the thread itself is about the prospect of Canon not manufacturing a 5D MK V (or other future gear), and your whole comment was about other equipment that already exists in the field...no need to be so aggro about it. I agree with you that the point is money, there's just no relevance in comparing gear in the field to what they might or should make in the future when talking financials.

 

[scyrene]

Having in mind all the DSLR limitations, I wonder why people still wanting to have a Reflex in his hands. Yeah, the battery can work for longer, and you see the image through a real mirror and feel how it takes the photo... but in low light situations MLC focus better, almost have no limitations on the frame, you can see histogram and the final exposure on the viewfinder, IBIS, totally silent shutter and faster... I would be glad to hear the reasons of anyone to still preferring a DSLR over those R5 and R6 bodies.

Ergonomics is one - MILCs are smaller, though they needn't be, and some of us still hope they'll release larger bodies in future - with larger lenses, handheld in particular. The superteles are getting smaller, but there is a lower limit to how big a 600mm f/4 can be.

 

[ahsanford]

One thing to bear in mind also is lenses. Maybe the margins on lenses are higher? A 5D5 buyer won't be getting any RF glass, and maybe the numbers stack in such as way that this is an unacceptable outcome for Canon.

Which is why you sell a 5D# for $3500 and you sell an R# for $3k*.

*A bad proposal here because of the whole 8K industry first action happening with the R5, but I'm guessing you take my point: incentivize migration, but don't mandate it. 'Here is your last 5D SLR, gang. We're charging through the nose for it, so please get with the program and migrate, eh?'

- A

 

[scyrene]

I too shoot birds and astro with the 5DSR and it is not ideal for either. Too slow for BIF and rarely locks focus (much less acquires focus) when I shoot birds. When it hits it is awesome. Great detail and ability to crop without significant loss of resolution. But it is frustrating for moving subjects. As for astro, I just used it last night on comet and MW. Too much noise and inability to handle higher ISO. As a result, I have to pair it with super fast UWA Sigma lenses to get decent shots.

Normalised the 5DsR is no noisier at high ISO than other Canon sensors of its era. Remember, you are magnifying the noise more if you view 100%.

 

[ahsanford]

Ergonomics is one - MILCs are smaller, though they needn't be, and some of us still hope they'll release larger bodies in future - with larger lenses, handheld in particular. The superteles are getting smaller, but there is a lower limit to how big a 600mm f/4 can be.

And these RF f/1.2 primes and f/2 zooms aren't exactly made of styrofoam.

Give us a damn huge chunky grip. 'Mirrorless is all about being small' clearly lost the argument: the new platform is flooded with heavy pro glass and there's nary a pancake in sight two years in.

- A

 

[scyrene]

I'm less upset than I would have been six months ago. The recent product announcements/releases are quite compelling, although a few issues (like ergonomics of smaller body size, how good the EVFs really are, etc) leave me cautious. If the 90D had dropped in price by an appreciable amount since release, I'd still be tempted to get one for its pixel density (for birds), but for other uses (macro, casual photography), the R6 offers a lot, and would be a not-too-expensive foot in the RF door. No rush though.

 

[unfocused]

...If you're Canon, what secures your future better. Producing two cameras that are functionally the same spec wise, but in different bodies, requiring two production and assembly lines or the efficiencies of scale of just one? Especially when that one product pushes people to purchase new lenses as well.

What if that one product causes people to stop buying, delay purchases or switch brands? What if it prompts a new competitor to develop a less expensive, better spec'd clone? This all seems like a risky strategy to me.

 

[BeenThere]

But Canon has already chosen, it appears.

[Don't make it too big and scare away the 'mirrorless is all about being small' crowd] + [internal economies of scale for recycling a common form factor, common batteries, common panel displays, common batteries, buttons, wheels, etc.] appears to be winning out over the old SLR grip/body size model.

...which is a very Sony thing to do. Canon is swallowing its pride here to some degree.

- A

What you are talking about is a moment in time. I am talking the long game over several generations of cameras.

 

[unfocused]

And maybe Canon could go out of business. They are going to make business decisions based on their marketing research and Knowledge of the industry and technologies.

Isn't that the same thing as letting buyers (the market) decide?

 

[amorse]

One thing to bear in mind also is lenses. Maybe the margins on lenses are higher? A 5D5 buyer won't be getting any RF glass, and maybe the numbers stack in such as way that this is an unacceptable outcome for Canon. Of course an R buyer doesn't need to get RF lenses, but there's a good chance most of them eventually will.

Finally someone mentions lenses etc. But of course a 5D4 owner looking to upgrade might not buy any new speedlights, lenses etc if they get a 5D5 because they presumably already own what they need, and if no new EF lenses are released (which is a big if), then there's nothing to upgrade to.

I agree 100%. I'm sure the lens strategy is a big part of the reason Canon is undertaking this effort - it's maybe one of Canon's strategies to encourage people moving over, and creating some more revenue options by getting people to buy focal lengths they already own.

I mean, they stopped development of new EF lenses, developed a new line with lenses which aren't possible on EF, and added the additional control ring. Essentially, using RF lenses becomes unique compared to EF on an EF body - you need to migrate for that experience. Also, making EF work well on RF bodies convinces people that getting into the ecosystem doesn't mean turning over their lens collection, but lots of those people may still buy new RF lenses focal lengths they already own, so at the end of the day Canon's lens sales may jump for some time as people move over. Consider the EF/RF zoom lens clones - most of the RF versions have an advantage in some manner - 16-35 f/2.8? upgrade to 15mm and add IS. 24-70 f/2.8? Add IS. 70-200? make it tiny by comparison. For me, everyone one of those is more attractive in RF than EF. I own all those focal lengths in EF, but if I jumped into an R5 I'd be looking at all of those.

 

[unfocused]

What company is still putting out modern SLRs that is not sometime in the near future going to abandon them as well? ...

I can think of at least one Korean and one Chinese company that makes lenses that might be working on cloning Canon DSLRs even as we speak.

 

[geffy]

D stands for Dodo

 

[Colorado]

What if that one product causes people to stop buying, delay purchases or switch brands? What if it prompts a new competitor to develop a less expensive, better spec'd clone? This all seems like a risky strategy to me.

As I mentioned earlier, both strategies are risky. Spending R&D dollars, production dollars, marketing dollars, etc on a 5DV that only a smaller subset will buy (because some portion of the market will have switched to a R5) is risky. Those 5DV purchasers include some people that would have switched do an R5 if not 5DV was available so you are cannibalizing R5 sales by making a 5DV. The expectation is that all R5 purchasers will (at different rates) start buying RF lenses.

The question of when Canon made the full DSLR to mirrorless switch was a question of when not if. You can argue it should have been after the 5DV. Canon (we can be sure) did market research and decided it was after the 1DMarkIII. Both choices have risk involved. As a company you do what research you can and make what you think is the best choice with the data that you have. Hindsight analysis may prove you made a bad decision but you can't tell that years before when you have to actually make the decision. The "just produce everything and keep everyone happy forever" answer is not always the right one.

This is happening now with performance cars where manual transmissions and (in the not too distant future) combustion engines are being phased out for electric. As someone that loves rowing gears manually while hearing the rumble of a push rod V8 that makes me sad. But my personal sadness isn't going to stop it from being the right business decision.

 

[PhotoGenerous]

As 5D users made up for the majority of higher end lens sales, they must now believe the R5 users will take over that position. A body is just one sale, the many L series pieces of glass you put in front of it is the real profit cashcow.

That’s me. (Hobbiest that’s done a single wedding and occasional family or other portrait sessions.) I pretty much have every Canon lens you could want besides the super telephotos that are on a whole different pricepoint level. I preordered the R5, already am getting three L lenses (and for the first time figuring out which EF lenses to sell).

I’ve e been hearing how DSLRs were dead ever since I first started researching what system to get into seven or eight years ago. I’ve been waiting for Canon, and I’m now on board with the R5 and will likely end up getting most RF lenses that come out.

I‘m still going to keep a 7DII and one 5DIV, but as more and more RF equivalents get released, I’m probably going to keep swapping out th EF versions, and maybe be left with only the tilt shift lenses, 1x-5x macro, and the 70-200 2.8 in the end.

I feel like people who want a 5DV are probably smarter about how they spend their money, whereas I love technology and collecting things alongside the art and craft of photography.

 

[Tom W]

Interesting....

Part of me wants a 5D Mk V, but with the R5 coming out, and assuming it's as good as it sounds, I probably would opt to stick with the mirrorless over the 5 series DSLR at this point.

 

[geffy]

How well does EF glass "actually" perform on an R5?

its not just that if you check the dxo figures then a lot of lenses do not resolve enough pixels even on a dslr, the new rf lenses should have more resolving power for the new sensors