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

[slclick]

I don’t know about R5. But on eosr Most EF glass is not as sharp as the R glass at the corner. The performance is similar to me.

These are two very different things.

 

[HenryL]

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.

Even if that were true...and I have zero reason to believe it is, I would continue to use existing 5D4's if that were what my business relied on. If you were a business owner, which is the scenario I put forth, would you rather switch to an unproven product/entity for all your photography business, or continue using proven gear that works day in and day out and is still currently available for purchase?

Edit: just to add for clarity - if someone did create something like you described it would not necessarily be a bad thing - I'm just saying that from a business perspective reliability carries lots of weight. Those users don't tend to upgrade as much as hobbyists. I get a new camera when I want one, my photographer friends get new camera's when they need them for one reason or another. Critical difference.

 

[Tom W]

I do kind of wonder, though, if they couldn't come out with a parallel body to the R5, kind of like the 90D and the M-6 Mk II share a lot of technology. Then the question is, will it sell...

 

[gbc]

Wonder how this is going to affect the market for used 5D mkIV's. Currently debating selling mine or my EOS R to finance the R5 purchase, and the 5D is still selling for more than the R.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

I'm opposed to no 5D5 being offered, but I concede what others have said. It's less risky than it looks. Who will steal Canon's lunch for doing this?

Sony? With Alpha? No. Zero chance.​

​

Pentax? Not enough glass to plausibly pull this off.​

​

Nikon? A spec monster supercamera D850 didn't make a dent in competitive share, did it? They are the obvious threat, but the Nation of Nikonia is somewhat on fire and falling apart right now.​

​

I'm not saying elimiating the 5D5 is utterly without risk. I just don't see a heavyweight making a major play to court those that would be ruffled by this.

- A

 

[[email protected]]

...
One area I am hoping the early reviews will look at is powering the R5/R6 with PD powerbanks from companies like Anker. While I do not have same requirement to look through a OVF/EVF for hours I do want to be able to run some extreme time-lapses and my EOS R just never was able to because of battery life. The 2 Anker PD powerbanks I have charge the EOS R just fine but will not power the R. I hope this has been changed for the R5/R6.

I've spent a lot of time figuring this stuff out, as I put cameras out in the woods for days/weeks at a time. The R would charge, but not run at the same time with the battery. The R5 is said to run AND charge on battery, which is very exciting for me. The limitation, I've found over time across systems, is the firmware of the batteries tend to shut them off when they don't draw after a while. So when your critter comes in front of the camera and triggers it, the battery is off until someone comes by and presses the button again. There are a few that don't do this. Tethertools' Case Relay product usually fixes this, but is oddly finicky and sometimes doesn't. It actually sends a wake signal in both directions when needed. If you're minding the camera yourself, you won't need to worry about this sort of thing.

 

[AlanF]

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.

I will happily replace my 5DSR for all the improvements the R5 promises for my style of shooting. I might also add the high MP body for landscape work when it is introduced but will likely give that one some time to understand what tradeoffs come with so many MP and if it is more of a studio beast or will work well in the wild.

Bob

The 5DSR works fine for me for BIF, not as good as the D850, admittedly, and it locks on very fast. What AF settings are you using. I use the central 9 points. It even works reasonably well with the 100-400mm II +1.4xTC using the centre and helper points at f/8. Here is a selection taken on 6 Aug last year with the 5DSR + 100-400mm II on Darwins Bay and Genovese in the Galapagos, with different types of shots from a tiny Storm Petrel, a diving pelican, boobies, frigate bird and a tropical bird belting across the sky. These aren't rare keepers, most of my shots were keepers. I have posted loads more in the BIF thread here.

 

[HenryL]

Why Pentax is Making the Right Call in Sticking with DSLRs

As the majority of camera manufacturers move away from the SLR type cameras and start producing mirrorless systems, one company continues to hold on to

petapixel.com

And I don't know medium format platforms at all, but I would imagine they, too have some folks that are harumph-ing at the death of the mirror.

SLRs will become niche over time, I agree, but not every manufacturer wants to make the massive investment just to climb into now piranha-filled waters of a mirrorless marketplace. Only the largest companies will survive that winnowing process.

- A

Another note - thanks for that link. Interesting quick read and some good points. Never been a fan of Pentax myself, but I know a couple folks back in the day that did and swore by them. I do hope things work out for them.

 

[ahsanford]

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

That wasn't the question -- that's the second or third time folks have talked about RF glass to answer that question.

I think people understand that older glass isn't ideal for high res output. But the question (I think) folks are asking: do EF lenses respond and focus well on an RF adaptor, or is their pep/snappiness lost due to lag, communication, etc.?

Principally, this is a matter of AF hit rate, AF speed, etc. compared to being on an EF mount, and everyone and their mother will tell you it is a fairly seamless experience. Now we can always debate whether the 'hassle' of an adaptor is ideal or whether the opportunity of a control ring (or rear CPL) actually heightens/extends what you can do with EF glass. But I am not aware of someone using an RF adaptor and crying foul over AF hit rate or AF lock speed.

- A

 

[Deleted member 68328]

Well, I guess no surprise with the success of the R5 but I know there will be a lot of folks who are disappointed.

What success? It's still on preorder ?

 

[dtaylor]

I'm not surprised by this but I am disappointed. I'll grant I have yet to see the R5 and R6 EVFs, but every EVF I've tried to date, including an A9, feels like a VGA monitor from the 1990s. It's not just the perceptible lag and jitter which every company has focused on eliminating (yet has failed to completely eliminate). Color, contrast, DR, and detail suck. Which is why I chuckle when someone says "but an EVF shows you what your photo will look like." If that were the case I would still shoot film.

Now they have reached a point that I can work with them. And I have to admit that in tricky lighting manual exposure with an EVF on a three dial camera is probably the most natural, intuitive way to nail exposure that one can imagine. (Though less intuitive, my results are just as consistent using a spot meter on a DSLR.) Never the less I would be interested in one more generation of DSLRs. Canon hasn't even released their rumored 83mp sensor yet and I don't expect it will ever see the inside of a flappy mirror body. But I would be very interested in a 5D mark V with the R5's internals and the 1DX mark III's PDAF.

I don't normally hope that rumors on this site turn out to be false, but I am hoping that this one turns out to be false.

 

[dichterDichter]

the viewfinder, the click sound and the awesome battery life is just great on dslr. but i think the future is somewhere else. but if canon would like to keep at least one, they would have to continue the ef lens developement. havent they announced to discontinue it?

 

[Deleted member 68328]

This is really a sad move from Canon. And stupid too. And somehow so careless towards their DSLR users. I understand mirrorless cameras are the future, but why making a switch like this? Why do not provide us with an overlap between similarly spec'd DSLR and mirrorless cameras so that we can compare, use both and decide how to make the transition (if ever so).
Comparing the R5 against the 5D Mark IV isn't fair imo. We needed a 5D Mark V.

And FFS Canon, can't you care about your customers who prefer an OVF?

And for those of you who prefer mirrorless cameras, good for you. But too many of you try to explain to those who prefer OVF why they're wrong. Just don't.

 

[SteveC]

Yes. I believe when I get my R5, I will probably get the control ring adapter for it and assign the aperture to it.

Most people seem to use it for ISO, but to me it seems intuitive to put the aperture there--after all you're adjusting something physically in the lens.

 

[ahsanford]

Why do not provide us with an overlap between similarly spec'd DSLR and mirrorless cameras so that we can compare, use both and decide how to make the transition (if ever so).

Yep. I expected a near-ish timeframe R5 and 5D5 and that would be it for the 5-series. One generation of overlap (or two if you equate a 5D4 sensor in the EOS R).

Lest we forget, the 90D is having its generation of overlap right now with the M6 Mk II.

But for lesser product lines, say your bread and butter Rebels, they may not get the courtesy of an overlap. #eek #horrormusic

- A

 

[[email protected]]

EVF lag at 120fps is 0.0083s. It's 10-20 times less than typical human reaction time. At 120fps it makes the reaction worse by 5-10%. But if you shoot in bursts it doesn't matter, you just need to start a burst upfront.

Quarkcharmed, that might work for your concerts, but the problem with EVF lag is more about
1) the cumulative delay
2) after a series of burst shots
3) on a moving target

You need all three of those factors to see the problem. It's all fine until your viewfinder shows you the bird in the center of the frame, while the actual recorded image shows just a bill off to the left of the frame. My hope is that this short delay makes it work.

Your figure of 8.3 ms isn't the lag, but rather is the time between refreshes of the monitor in the EVF. There is another delay, which is the processing time it takes to get the image from the sensor to the EVF. We don't know what that figure is yet on the R5. If it is less than 8.3 ms, then you will not have a cumulatively larger lag in the EVF, and all is good. Traditionally, though, that has not been the case. Even with the A9II, there is enough lag so that if you have a 20fps burst for a few seconds, the last shots will be significantly behind a fast moving subject.

Because the A9II is a beast when it comes to read-out (stacked sensor and a few other innovative things), I'm not optimistic the R5 will be better than the Sony in this one feature. Hope to be wrong. I have been on other elements where I've underestimated this body. -tig

 

[BeenThere]

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

Partially. Buyers decide what they want today based on what is available today and and a host of other factors (like opinions and measurements discussed on this forum). Manufacturers have to look into the future and plan for what they think buyers will want in the future based on the factors I mentioned and others. Sometimes they get it right and succeed and sometimes not.

 

[ahsanford]

Most people seem to use it for ISO, but to me it seems intuitive to put the aperture there--after all you're adjusting something physically in the lens.

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

 

[dtaylor]

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

This is the main reason why I absolutely hate DXO's "perceptual megapixels" nonsense.

Resolution does not work this way. Components do not "out resolve" and cap each other in this manner. System resolution is always lower than the weakest component, but improving the strongest component will still improve the final result. An R5 with a cheap 1990s consumer zoom will still produce a better image than, say, an R6 with the same lens.

The RF mount does not have inherent advantages for lens resolution. It allows designers to use some designs, for some focal lengths, which are easier to design/produce. And in those cases you might get a sharper (or cheaper or lighter) lens. But then again someone might put so much effort into the equivalent SLR lens that they have the sharper version. And for a lot of focal lengths the design will be the same, EF or RF. You just can't go by rules of thumb here, you have to test lens vs. lens in the real world.

As for the real world, there are a lot of EF lenses that sit perfectly well on a 45/50mp sensor.

 

[AEWest]

This is really a sad move from Canon. And stupid too. And somehow so careless towards their DSLR users. I understand mirrorless cameras are the future, but why making a switch like this? Why do not provide us with an overlap between similarly spec'd DSLR and mirrorless cameras so that we can compare, use both and decide how to make the transition (if ever so).
Comparing the R5 against the 5D Mark IV isn't fair imo. We needed a 5D Mark V.

And FFS Canon, can't you care about your customers who prefer an OVF?

And for those of you who prefer mirrorless cameras, good for you. But too many of you try to explain to those who prefer OVF why they're wrong. Just don't.

Yes it is inevitable that some photographers will be put off by this (so far rumoured) decision. If true, Canon must have done a cost benefit analysis and decided that the benefits of moving more quickly to RF outweighed the negatives.

Most expected that it would eventually happen, but Canon has not been clear on its timeline. Perhaps they still don't know for sure and are waiting to see the market response over a longer period of time for the new cameras.