So...What's wrong with the R5?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 16,902
Re: Are you sure about that?

jonpais wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

J A C S wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

Guy Roberts wrote:

Looking at the Nikon Z7 the R5 is $1000 too expensive imo.

Yeah... I mean how much could superior IBIS, EVF, touch screen, ergonomics, dual card slots, FPS, build quality, 4k60+, 8K be worth... it should be priced the same as the far inferior product. Silly Canon.

Dual slots, 4k60+, and 8K are worth nothing to me...

I don’t NEED dual slots, but I’d use them. You wouldn’t?

No. I had the 5D4 for two years. The two slots were an annoyance. The camera would switch to the card I did not want to use because I took off the first one, for example, to download the photos. I often found the images on the CF card when I expected them on the SD card. Since I do not have a CF card reader on my laptop, that was annoying. I ended up removing the CF card.

Is it possible after several years the implementation is better? Not having a CF reader hanging around seems weird...heck, I just bought a new high speed reader that includes CF.

And those video specs are an indication of: way better processor that enables all the eye, face, head, animal, animal-eye tracking; a very deep buffer for continuous shooting; greatly improved rolling shutter that will make the electronic shutter dramatically more useful; 100% DPAF coverage on 45 MILLION pixels....I’m sure I’m leaving out some implications those specs have for stills.

An indication, maybe be but that does not mean that those video specs are needed for that.

This is our reality. To sell cameras they must have video. And video is just about the last thing in the camera tech race.

Price isn’t the problem. The problem is that you don’t find the stills features worth the price. You. DR will improve, DP RAW is better...stills will benefit noticeably.

Yes, I said me. And no, there is a difference between stills features and 8K.

It’s like saying I want a new car but don’t want speakers and a radio. That’s just not an option any more. I don’t want to pay for 8K either. Thus the R. The price isn’t the issue....it’s that making a flagship product requires big specs and that costs lots of money. The problem isn’t the price: you don’t need a flagship.

The price is reasonable. If you’re a professional, you should be able to pay it off in a few jobs.

The least expensive 8K full frame cinema camera costs $6,000 body only and thousands more to make it usable.

No other hybrid camera even comes close in video features. It’s generations ahead of Sony and appears to have insane AF and stabilization.

The RF lenses look incredible and again, offer unique parameters found in no other system. As a photography tool, it’s nearly everything forum members were hoping for when the EOS R was released instead.

Those who say Canon just makes halo products in order to sell middling amateur gear don’t realize how absurd that sounds. All of Canon’s recent releases are mindblowing, from the C500 Mark II, C300 Mark III to the 1D X Mark III, all best in their class: best FF cinema camera, best super35 cinema camera, best DSLR ever. They are clearly listening to what professionals are asking for. Likewise the R5.

What would a pro do with an 8K video?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
YWG
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow