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

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 4,795
Re: Are you sure about that?

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

lilBuddha 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’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.

One, I'm pretty sure the 1DX is still the flagship.

Of the FF DSLR. The R5 is the flagship of the R Series and you know, maybe even Canon’s entire camera line. What’s not a flagship spec?

Even if you sperate out the R series, using Canon's own nomenclature, the R5 is meant to be 2nd tier. Calling this camera the R5 strongly implies there will be an R1

Sensor specs re not what makes a Canon flagship. it is those specs combined with ruggedness, like the 1D line. Given Canon's past history, it is incredibly likely they are planning a 1R replacement of the 1DX

Two, they released the R6 concurrently.

Were we taking about the R6?

People complaining that the R5 is too much miss that the R is an alternative.

Three, the video isn't a significant cost factor if you want the high res sensor and shutter speed

I’m not sure that’s entirely true, but is true to say nobody leaves video out of cameras any more.

If one is going to use a high end sensor and have the throughput for high framerates, adding video isn't a huge cost. the framework is already there. Plus, if Canon had to put out a stills camera with this spec and a hybrid camera with the same, they would sell fewer units of each therefore driving up the cost of each.

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