Relative value new R MICL vs old DSLR

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,081
Re: Relative value new R MICL vs old DSLR
1

lawny13 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

People really need to look at the relative value of MSRP.

I am not sure why so many keep comparing the release prices to what you can get older models for now. For example here in Europe the 5DIV launched for €4500. The R5 launched for relatively the same price.

The 6D was in the 2k was range and now so is the R6. For both the R5 and R6 you get a major jump in features. They both do 20 fps which was only 1D territory.

The same goes for the launch prices of a 5DS/R.

So... had canon launched a new one of any of the DSLR lines what prices points would you expect th to be at?? Pretty much the same as the usual MSRP right?

So if people realise this then they must also realise that prices will come down over time in a similar fashion. They can upgrade to the latest DSLR version and hold out for later down the road when the RF cameras come down in price. Or they can pick up one that already came down in price (R from 2300 to 1800 for example), or they can get on to the R5/R6. And remember they can seemlessly adapt the lenses they already have.

Sure that is a fair comparison but I think it’s also quite valid to compare what you are going to pay right this moment. So, if I’m buying today, you can be sure I’m looking at the cost of all the options when I make a decision and I have to say, the attractive prices of 5d mk4’s definitely is going to have influence over what I purchase. Even though it isn’t an exciting new model, it is a darn nice camera at a great price.

I was think I pointed out that they could get the latest DSLR and wait for the MILC prices to come down.

In general IQ of the cameras he mentioned all hold up and even today. The major improvements that you get from MILC will be things like AF and DR. For those doing landscape I don’t see why an R would t just be great value at €1800. After all the 5D4 is still selling well above 2k.

The main concern would be to those looking for things low birding. Though one can most definitely can do it with the 5D4, there is no disputing that the R6 and R5 will do considerably better. And last I checked most serious birders have some darn expensive lenses. So I figured a mini 1DXIII (R6) would be within reach.

Cause let’s not forget... the 5D4 sells for €2600 here while the R6 goes for €2400.

Anyway. In the end people see to evaluate money vs value for themselves.

The 5d mk4 is definitely good for birding and yes I agree if you are mainly doing landscapes the R is definitely a good value. Around here lightly used 5d mk4’s are selling for VERY attractive prices. I’m confident that the R5 and R6 will have some advantages over the 5d mk4 for birding but also I’m sure there are also disadvantages. For example, battery life and optical viewfinder. Also I saw a review from a very experienced birder that said the 5d mk4 did better with TC’s on the big primes... Anyway I’m glad the new r’s are so popular, it means there are some extremely good deals on older gear now.

Since it looks like I won’t be receiving my R5 any time soon I have decided to rent an R6 (R5 wasn’t even available for rent until something like October 10) to really experiment with the AF system and try to figure out if I really want to keep my R5 order active or to cancel it. It’s frustrating to get so much second hand information and lots of it is conflicting. The more I investigate the more these new cameras seem to be more evolutionary than revolutionary. If that’s the case I might be grabbing a used 7d mk2 and 5d mk4 to tide me over until something comes out that looks like a better fit for me than the very expensive R5. Certainly if the AF system turns out to be as good as I hope it is then the cost of the R5 will be well worth it but I really need to see for myself before I make a decision to cancel or not.

After seeing how expensive the RF 100-500 is I’m afraid to see how much the RF 500mm f/4 will be.

20 fps is 20 fps. For birding that is definitely a big one.

And no, they are not evolutionary. They are indeed revolutionary. That is only really one issue either the R5 and the the battery life. Besides that I see absolutely no point in needing an “upgrade” in the next 2-5 years.

Well there is one thing about it that annoys me to be honest. With e-shutter you either get 20 fps or one. You can’t see it to be in between. But that is itZ

And I have owned the A7III for about a year and a half, shot the 7D and 5D lines etc. Edge to edge AF with subject tracking and recognition to this level. Canon went from the likes of the R to arguably surpassing Sony... big time and definitely when it comes to animals.

Basically the R5 will allow me to forget about getting the next body to upgrade to, and focus and spend my money in glass.

You will see...

20fps isn’t the be all end all, especially if they all aren’t in focus. I’m reading a good number of reports that the AF might not be as perfect as the specs suggest. Certainly everyone seems to agree that it’s good but then what we had before was quite good. Also, to realize full performance of these new cameras you have to have the latest lenses and they are definitely pricey. So I’m looking at bodies that are twice as expensive, the need to upgrade my expensive lenses, expensive mem cards, battery grips that I didn’t need in the past... I’m really starting to wonder in the performance difference is really worth the price. Hopefully this coming week I’ll have a better idea.

LOL, we’ll all have our doubts while waiting for our cameras to arrive. It’s just a natural part of the process.

Then when the cameras do arrive, we’ll have the inevitable moments of regret. At least until we get to know the cameras better.

This has always been the risk for early-adopters. The key to minimizing both of these is to know beforehand (as much as possible) what you’re getting into.

This time around however, I think the protracted wait (for most of us) has indeed made it harder to maintain our sanity . But it’ll also make the transition easier as well, once we get our little mitts on the darn things!

Do get back to us on what you conclude using it.

So far... the AF is all that. The 20 fps is actually quite good. I only which I could do 8 fps in e-shutter, or 5 as options rather than single or full out 20.

The only real thing I see as meh with the R5 is battery life. And of course I wouldn't mind having it for half the price, but that is simply unrealistic.
As for comments like getting camera for half the price. Which one were you talking about? Cause if you look at a 5DS new, it would cost you about €3500 at B&H vs the R5 for $3899 at B&H.
Yes I am comparing it to the 5DS because it resolves at that level. Yet you get 8 fps live feed, or 12 fps, or 20 fps e-shutter, corner to corner AF coverage, - 6EV focusing, and f11 or even narrower focusing as well. The list goes on.
In comparison, if you had a new 5DIV, it would be in the same price point and the upgrade would be more incremental. It definitely won't have most of that list above... dual cards sure, maybe the same IQ. But not the rest, and no eye af in VF.

Anyway... everyone needs to decide what is worth the money and the change to them. I didn't have much canon gear before, so to me it was an obvious choice. And I am not regretting it.

What I do know for sure, is that once the big shipment does come in, that we’ll all be able to watch it play out in full color, right here on the forums.

Enjoy the wait,

R2

Well my rental is scheduled to arrive Tuesday so I should know pretty soon if it’s worth it for me or not pretty soon.

I will post once I’ve had some time in the field with the R6.  I’m waiting on FedEX now, hopefully they won’t wait until the end of the day.

when I say half the price, I mean the 7d mk2 was half the price of the R5 that I’m trying to replace the 7d mk2 with.  I don’t really need FF so it’s a feature I’m paying a big premium for that I don’t really want.

Also, with my most used lenses I’m limited to only 6.8 FPS with the R5 vs 10FPS with the 7d mk2 and 90d.  Sure I can get 20 FPS with 12 bit vs 14 bit and very fast filling of the buffer/mem card...  I have been pretty happy with 10FPS and can live with 6.8 FPS but still in this respect it’s a step down from what I’m used to as is the pixel density.

So bottom line for me, the AF needs to be a pretty significant improvement for the R5 to be worth all the cost. Otherwise, for a fraction of the cost of the R5 and associated other upgrades necessary with it I can replace the shutter in my 90d a bunch of times...

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

lawny13 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,029
Re: Relative value new R MICL vs old DSLR
1

BirdShooter7 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

People really need to look at the relative value of MSRP.

I am not sure why so many keep comparing the release prices to what you can get older models for now. For example here in Europe the 5DIV launched for €4500. The R5 launched for relatively the same price.

The 6D was in the 2k was range and now so is the R6. For both the R5 and R6 you get a major jump in features. They both do 20 fps which was only 1D territory.

The same goes for the launch prices of a 5DS/R.

So... had canon launched a new one of any of the DSLR lines what prices points would you expect th to be at?? Pretty much the same as the usual MSRP right?

So if people realise this then they must also realise that prices will come down over time in a similar fashion. They can upgrade to the latest DSLR version and hold out for later down the road when the RF cameras come down in price. Or they can pick up one that already came down in price (R from 2300 to 1800 for example), or they can get on to the R5/R6. And remember they can seemlessly adapt the lenses they already have.

Sure that is a fair comparison but I think it’s also quite valid to compare what you are going to pay right this moment. So, if I’m buying today, you can be sure I’m looking at the cost of all the options when I make a decision and I have to say, the attractive prices of 5d mk4’s definitely is going to have influence over what I purchase. Even though it isn’t an exciting new model, it is a darn nice camera at a great price.

I was think I pointed out that they could get the latest DSLR and wait for the MILC prices to come down.

In general IQ of the cameras he mentioned all hold up and even today. The major improvements that you get from MILC will be things like AF and DR. For those doing landscape I don’t see why an R would t just be great value at €1800. After all the 5D4 is still selling well above 2k.

The main concern would be to those looking for things low birding. Though one can most definitely can do it with the 5D4, there is no disputing that the R6 and R5 will do considerably better. And last I checked most serious birders have some darn expensive lenses. So I figured a mini 1DXIII (R6) would be within reach.

Cause let’s not forget... the 5D4 sells for €2600 here while the R6 goes for €2400.

Anyway. In the end people see to evaluate money vs value for themselves.

The 5d mk4 is definitely good for birding and yes I agree if you are mainly doing landscapes the R is definitely a good value. Around here lightly used 5d mk4’s are selling for VERY attractive prices. I’m confident that the R5 and R6 will have some advantages over the 5d mk4 for birding but also I’m sure there are also disadvantages. For example, battery life and optical viewfinder. Also I saw a review from a very experienced birder that said the 5d mk4 did better with TC’s on the big primes... Anyway I’m glad the new r’s are so popular, it means there are some extremely good deals on older gear now.

Since it looks like I won’t be receiving my R5 any time soon I have decided to rent an R6 (R5 wasn’t even available for rent until something like October 10) to really experiment with the AF system and try to figure out if I really want to keep my R5 order active or to cancel it. It’s frustrating to get so much second hand information and lots of it is conflicting. The more I investigate the more these new cameras seem to be more evolutionary than revolutionary. If that’s the case I might be grabbing a used 7d mk2 and 5d mk4 to tide me over until something comes out that looks like a better fit for me than the very expensive R5. Certainly if the AF system turns out to be as good as I hope it is then the cost of the R5 will be well worth it but I really need to see for myself before I make a decision to cancel or not.

After seeing how expensive the RF 100-500 is I’m afraid to see how much the RF 500mm f/4 will be.

20 fps is 20 fps. For birding that is definitely a big one.

And no, they are not evolutionary. They are indeed revolutionary. That is only really one issue either the R5 and the the battery life. Besides that I see absolutely no point in needing an “upgrade” in the next 2-5 years.

Well there is one thing about it that annoys me to be honest. With e-shutter you either get 20 fps or one. You can’t see it to be in between. But that is itZ

And I have owned the A7III for about a year and a half, shot the 7D and 5D lines etc. Edge to edge AF with subject tracking and recognition to this level. Canon went from the likes of the R to arguably surpassing Sony... big time and definitely when it comes to animals.

Basically the R5 will allow me to forget about getting the next body to upgrade to, and focus and spend my money in glass.

You will see...

20fps isn’t the be all end all, especially if they all aren’t in focus. I’m reading a good number of reports that the AF might not be as perfect as the specs suggest. Certainly everyone seems to agree that it’s good but then what we had before was quite good. Also, to realize full performance of these new cameras you have to have the latest lenses and they are definitely pricey. So I’m looking at bodies that are twice as expensive, the need to upgrade my expensive lenses, expensive mem cards, battery grips that I didn’t need in the past... I’m really starting to wonder in the performance difference is really worth the price. Hopefully this coming week I’ll have a better idea.

LOL, we’ll all have our doubts while waiting for our cameras to arrive. It’s just a natural part of the process.

Then when the cameras do arrive, we’ll have the inevitable moments of regret. At least until we get to know the cameras better.

This has always been the risk for early-adopters. The key to minimizing both of these is to know beforehand (as much as possible) what you’re getting into.

This time around however, I think the protracted wait (for most of us) has indeed made it harder to maintain our sanity . But it’ll also make the transition easier as well, once we get our little mitts on the darn things!

Do get back to us on what you conclude using it.

So far... the AF is all that. The 20 fps is actually quite good. I only which I could do 8 fps in e-shutter, or 5 as options rather than single or full out 20.

The only real thing I see as meh with the R5 is battery life. And of course I wouldn't mind having it for half the price, but that is simply unrealistic.
As for comments like getting camera for half the price. Which one were you talking about? Cause if you look at a 5DS new, it would cost you about €3500 at B&H vs the R5 for $3899 at B&H.
Yes I am comparing it to the 5DS because it resolves at that level. Yet you get 8 fps live feed, or 12 fps, or 20 fps e-shutter, corner to corner AF coverage, - 6EV focusing, and f11 or even narrower focusing as well. The list goes on.
In comparison, if you had a new 5DIV, it would be in the same price point and the upgrade would be more incremental. It definitely won't have most of that list above... dual cards sure, maybe the same IQ. But not the rest, and no eye af in VF.

Anyway... everyone needs to decide what is worth the money and the change to them. I didn't have much canon gear before, so to me it was an obvious choice. And I am not regretting it.

What I do know for sure, is that once the big shipment does come in, that we’ll all be able to watch it play out in full color, right here on the forums.

Enjoy the wait,

R2

Well my rental is scheduled to arrive Tuesday so I should know pretty soon if it’s worth it for me or not pretty soon.

I will post once I’ve had some time in the field with the R6. I’m waiting on FedEX now, hopefully they won’t wait until the end of the day.

when I say half the price, I mean the 7d mk2 was half the price of the R5 that I’m trying to replace the 7d mk2 with. I don’t really need FF so it’s a feature I’m paying a big premium for that I don’t really want.

Also, with my most used lenses I’m limited to only 6.8 FPS with the R5 vs 10FPS with the 7d mk2 and 90d. Sure I can get 20 FPS with 12 bit vs 14 bit and very fast filling of the buffer/mem card... I have been pretty happy with 10FPS and can live with 6.8 FPS but still in this respect it’s a step down from what I’m used to as is the pixel density.

So bottom line for me, the AF needs to be a pretty significant improvement for the R5 to be worth all the cost. Otherwise, for a fraction of the cost of the R5 and associated other upgrades necessary with it I can replace the shutter in my 90d a bunch of times...

I do get where you are coming from.

But somehow I still think that R5 is a significantly better camera than the 7D2. Both in terms of features as well as AF. 
But as you say, if you use glass that will limit the fps, and you use it essentially in crop mode only, then it starts to dwindle the things that make it "better". As for the whole 12 bit vs 14 bit thing. A bigger question is weather 12 bit is actually better than the images that the 7D2 produces in the first place.

If I look at this graph. obviously the FF R5 outperforms the DR of the 7D2 by a major margin. But when you look at it in crop mode then it only does so at lower ISOs. But at ISO 800 it still has the advantage.

Then you can look at the E-shutter DR. And you see it takes a hit in the lower ISOs (compared to FF), but matches the FF DR from ISO 800 onwards.

I assume that we can extrapolate this to mean that its ISO performance in ES and crop mode would follow the DR performance of the R5 in simple mechanical shutter crop mode. The gains aren't huge, but they are there. 
So this pretty much leaves you with pixel density. If the pixel density was the same, then likely at higher ISOs you won't have much if any gains in IQ to begin with. Either way, you are walking about a 18MP image vs 20MP. Which I would place in the negligible bin.

But based on your handle... and our previous conversations.. you are into birding. And the R5 AF system does definitely shine there.

Here is a pretty heavily cropped image I took recently.

Two at a distance

And this one I took of a small fast bird. I pretty much blinked and he was across the frame. Camera tracked it, but I didn't. Would have never gotten it when I used to have the 70D or the A7III.

Now... I was out with the family for lunch. This was with the 24-105, so they were close, and thus their movement relative to the frame is quite fast.

Anyway. As you know I am a beginner when it comes to birding. So it is hard for me to compare when it comes to using a 7D2 for that purpose vs the R5. But in general. After using cameras for 5 years the R5 comes across as a step up in all regards compared to the 70D, 7D, A7III which I have owned and the 5DIII which I have used for a summer. 
Again... very very curious of your take on the R5/R6. Think you will be more critical than me.

KEG
KEG Veteran Member • Posts: 3,297
Re: Relative value new R MICL vs old DSLR

Malachi42 wrote:

I'd focus more on the glass than the camera. Five, ten, fifteen years from now, they'll still be using the glass they buy today, assuming they buy quality glass, but they won't be using the camera they buy today.

That is certainly true in my case. I switched to Canon back in 2004, so I have a good collection of EF lenses. Today, I still use all that glass, but I rarely ever use any of the cameras I bought from back then (5D and 20D).

So, I'm going to go off the beaten path and suggest the RP. It's a perfectly capable still photographer's camera that can make use of quality, used EF glass, while opening the door to the RF line up.

I actually think that is a good idea.

Of course, if there are certain features that are absolute requirements, like 50 MP or 12 FPS, then obviously it's not the right camera. But, for anyone who can make do with it's perfectly good capabilities, it's a great gateway camera. The $1500 (R6) to $2400 (R5) you save, for an R-series camera you can actually put your hands on today, can go towards some good quality glass.

Anyway, just another perspective.

-- hide signature --

KEG

 KEG's gear list:KEG's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EOS M3 Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M50 Canon EOS RP +20 more
sax422 New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Relative value new R MICL vs old DSLR

We went through this same sort of decision tree (likely with lots more angst and waffling!) before becoming early adopters to the R line.  I learned long ago that in my world of buying crazy expensive lasers you bet first on the people (canon), then on the glass / architecture (RF system) and last on the software.  I decided on the RF system because i felt a gamble on Canon was safer than Nikon and Sony, partly because i did not understand Nikons initial lens roadmap and the Sony's were established in a e-mount system and i think that the RF and Z systems have more design space available.  I have a 24-105L, 15-35L and EF100-400mk2 and could not complain if i was paid to.  So i guess i bet on canon and RF with the rest just picking a body that seemed to fit our needs.

interesting conversation.

Croomrider Regular Member • Posts: 478
Re: Relative value new R MICL vs old DSLR

Malachi42 wrote:

I'd focus more on the glass than the camera. Five, ten, fifteen years from now, they'll still be using the glass they buy today, assuming they buy quality glass, but they won't be using the camera they buy today.

That is certainly true in my case. I switched to Canon back in 2004, so I have a good collection of EF lenses. Today, I still use all that glass, but I rarely ever use any of the cameras I bought from back then (5D and 20D).

So, I'm going to go off the beaten path and suggest the RP. It's a perfectly capable still photographer's camera that can make use of quality, used EF glass, while opening the door to the RF line up.

Of course, if there are certain features that are absolute requirements, like 50 MP or 12 FPS, then obviously it's not the right camera. But, for anyone who can make do with it's perfectly good capabilities, it's a great gateway camera. The $1500 (R6) to $2400 (R5) you save, for an R-series camera you can actually put your hands on today, can go towards some good quality glass.

Anyway, just another perspective.

Exactly the route I recently took. Bought the RP and a couple of lenses to go along with the EF glass I already have. Coming from a 5DIII and the original 7D. Would like to end up with the R5, but it's too expensive and hard to get right now. Price will come down after a while and I'll have more glass to use on it when I do get it!

Croomrider Regular Member • Posts: 478
Re: Relative value new R MICL vs old DSLR

highlights wrote:

While it will vary by market, locally we can get gray market 5DS with a 12 mth Guarantee for between 5% and 10% more than a used one without any guarantee . In some cases this 5DS price is less than a 4 yo 5DSr with 100k+ activations.

Are those gray market prices of $1100-1200 for a new 5DS real when the non-gray new units are selling at 3x the price? I've bought gray market in the past and usually see maybe a 25% difference, but 3x? Maybe it's all bait & switch.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads