Canon EOS R5 review

I am using all EF lenses on the R5, I tried and compared my old EF 24-105 with the RF version. I am pretty sure the RF is optically better, but the EF has a smoother zoom for filming and honestly I prefer the look and feel of the EF glass. Did not notice much of a difference in AF performance. The adapter is very well built, it has no slop and it feels as integral with the lens. I received my R5 early October, I pre-ordered on announcement day early July via The Camera Store.

Yeah, it is the same auto-ISO/minimum shutter implementation that has been on Canon cameras for years now. It would be so much better if you could select any value for minimum shutter and better yet have that adjustable with a dial.

Nikon has used 1/3 stop increments for years also. It is purely a simple software option and makes Canon look like its made for children comparatively when they force full stop increments. Pathetic really.

I use the auto min/max iso/shutter/aperture function all the time and it is really irritating Canon cant give us 1/3 stop options.

I wish DPR would put a little complaint about this in their reviews. Canon might actually respond.

@RubberDias - Dark, cold and rainy mornings, and you still think this is august? Schoolboy forum error.

The mods need to give RD a vacation again. He continues to break forum rules and can’t even get his facts straight.
These comments were mostly civil until he showed back up.

@No Outlet/Andy David

Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

I've never been banned in all the twelve years I've been here, so the mods can't give me a vacation 'again'. They can however give you another vacation on this month old account, and a few of your others.

Look at any comments section. Mostly good discussion about products.
Look at Rubber Dials history. Mostly lies, brand bashing and personal attacks and nothing about the articles.
This comments section was fine until he showed up.
Here he lied about the age of someone’s account just bash them.
Don’t believe a word he says. He keeps getting caught lying. He needs a longer vacation this time.

Andy, There are a good number who agree with you. This is from someone earlier. Agree 100%

“For my neeeds its the best digital camera ever made. Better then both a7r4 and a9 mark 2 and those are 2 different cameas Wittch makes the r5 even more impressive.”

The feel, size and grip of the R5 are just superb. So far for me Canon makes the FF mirrorless bodies that feel the best in my hands. They have nailed the ergonomics.

And yes, the R5 combines the best of the Sony a9II and a7r4 in one camera: super fast and intelligent AF with high resolution. That's been the holy grail for many years and Canon got there first. Other cameras from other brands will come, but only because Canon forced the issue and delivered.

I actually prefer the RP in my hands maybe because I am used to smaller bodies like Sony.

@Thoughts R Us
I would tweak your sentence to "the R5 attempts to combine the best of the Sony a9II and a7r4 in one camera" partially succeeding at it.
The R5 is a great camera and it can handle action photography fairly well but it is no nearly as good as the A9. I will give you a simple example from my other day shoot. It was golfing: the shutter/EVF lag made it difficult catching consistently the right moment when swinging the club. The outcome was unreliable and you cannot use the 20fps because of rolling shutter. These are easy shots with the A9, hit and miss (honestly it was mostly a miss) with the R5. As a fact, I think I would have had better success with a 5DIV or the A7RIV.

So if you're going spend $3900 on a new camera, you might consider saving more to buy a $10,000 camera? Yeah, thanks, but no thanks. With $10,000, I got the R5 plus most of the lenses I need.

Try selling any Fuji GFX camera and you will get a nasty surprise...

The GFX100 is an amazing camera but has nothing to do with an R5. Apples vs oranges. If someone is undecided between them I think is a clueless amateur with deep pockets.

Design and ergonomics are very good, I have the R6 so I can tell one or two things about those cameras. Have a nice day.

Heh....it's a great camera but I will admit it's my least favorite looking one. Nikon definitely wins the looks but it's missing things as a class leading hybrid.

What is wrong with "copying" the best ergonomics?

I'm not looking at it when it is in my hand. The ergonomics are superb. Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It’s really sexy to me.

Kudos to Canon that they never tried to come up with any retro design but sticking with pure functional design... like what Dieter Rams did for Braun some decades ago.

I had always hoped that when Canon released their mirrorless cameras, to keep it exactly like their DSLR but flatten a bit...and my dreams came true. Why ruin something great. I think it looks hella sexy. lol.

@vegetaleb
I guess you are a fan of the Z with the EVF sticking out like a sore thumb.

@entoman – Canons let you select the "Initial Servo AF point for Face + Tracking" and you can set it to the behavior you describe ("small AF box over the part of the subject you want to track"), you can use the touchscreen to select the object to track or you can let the camera figure it out on its own

It is covered in the review in the "How to select your initial AF point in Face/Tracking mode" box.

@entoman - if you use the "small af box" approach then the camera will track whatever you chose with the AF box, and it will ignore the face. If you place the AF box over a face then face/eye detection will engage.

If set "Initial Servo AF point for Face + Tracking" to "auto" (disable the said AF box) then the camera will go into face/eye AF as soon as it finds a face.

This is all for EOS R, but I assume it works the same (or better) for R5.

It would in no way affect my decision, because I'd buy the camera purely for stills usage (wildlife, nature, macro, landscape). For my kind of usage I think the R5 is probably the best machine on the market, with a7Riv as runner up.

If I wanted a video camera, which I don't, I wouldn't choose the R5. Instead I'd buy a cheaper video cam, learn the craft on it, and then be in a better position to make a judgement on upgrading to a better video cam.

7DMkii will never die.

50D will die if it gets wet.

Trust me.

8K is nothing more than a gimmick in this camera. Aside from bragging rights from Canon users, Photographers seeking the odd HQ stills and hobbyists looking to shoot 8K to make their personal videos standout a little more on YouTube, there is little value of the 8K mode in the R5, and especially for the vast majority of Video Producers filming Professional work. Those who do need 8K for Professional work and I know a few that are, look to the URSA 12K, where 8K is offered at higher frame rates and in a body that is targeted for Professional video work.
I'd be amazed if anyone looking at this camera will consider the 8K overheat a problem. It is more the overheat in the 4K HQ and 120fps 4K modes where the problem lies for potential buyers.

I guess I'd have to decide if the 8K overheating is better or worse than the competition. Oh, wait...

Better to decide if you need 8K in the first place..as for competition, URSA 12K is there if you need 8K video and not have it overheat.

Personally I could not care less about the 8K. 99% of my shooting is stills and "standard" 4K.

@aquarta: it is quite simple: if you want 8k in a small classic 35mm body, you have no alternatives at the moment. Period.

Canon made a serious error of judgement when they hyped up the 8K feaure of the R5, knowing that it had limitations on its use.

They should have divulged the limitations right from the beginning, and concentrated promoting the camera's many other outstanding virtues.

But at the end of the day it's probably the "best" FF stills MILC in existence, and as capable as its nearest competitor (the a7Riv) at 4K and 1080p video.

Oh boy if you even knew how ridiculous your comment is.

"All photographers are brothers and sisters until the day they die"

Hahahahahahahahahaha... *most* photographers visiting the dpr site bloody hate each other!

Huh? Nikon 14-30 S is sharper than the Sony 16-35 f4. Nikon 50 1.8 S is a very sharp lens across the frame and it scores 93 on Dpreview. So as rest of the S lenses. If you have compared the lenses (if you can), please show the results to us.

can you confirm any of your claims?

his claims of 12-bit only for sony are wrong:

the a9ii will shoot 12fps uncompressed 14-bit raw with the e.s.: https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1960/v1/en/contents/TP0002782471.html

https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00229990

@LookintotheMirrorlessoften

Yes, all of them except for when I said I can't confirm the continuous bit-depth, because I believe I read it somewhere, but can't confirm it to be true or not true.

It's very well known that the A9 can only shoot 12-bit in electronic shutter. All the dynamic range details can be found here: https://www.photonstophotos.net/

Photons 2 photos I thought showed the A9 and A9ii have near a full stop less PDR than the R5.
IIRC the A9 maxes out at about the same level as APSC cameras and about the same as a couple MFT cameras.

Also, can someone give u the details on how with the Dual layer R5 sensor it is possible to extract two RAW files and possibly get another stop of DR? I saw the R5 creates two RAW files with different exposures for every image.

there has the r5 11.8 stops, is that near to 13 for you?

I'm not so sure about that. The dynamic range of the R5 looks about as good as any of them.
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4

For sure , Canon made incredible camera, 3 years ago though they had nothing that would stand 1 on 1 with d850. And were beaten heaaavily.

video frame grabs have garbage p.q., with rolling shutter, compression artifacts, no uncompressed raw, etc.

if low standards like that are good enough, there isn't any point in throwing $4k+ at an r5, you could do it better for much cheaper with an old slr.

Unfortunately the devil is in the rolling shutter. I presume if you need 30FPS for stills you are shooting fast moving stuff.

Wow, I didn't realize how many Sony users are switching. This is from a long time Sony shooter on the site you linked to....

" I'm a Sony fanboy but I will use whatever brand/model/etc. performs the best for my needs. I've previously used some Canon Rebels way back and owned the Sony A6000, A6300, RX100IV, A7II, A7RII, A7RIII, A7RIV, and A9II

I received my R5 on day one and it has been a pleasure to use coming from an A7RIV and having recently picked up an A9II after the R5. The short version is I will be selling my A7RIV,"

"Canon R5 freezing when adapting lenses" -for r6 as well, both with canon-brand lenses, it's not just a tamron problem:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64249231

https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS/R5-STILLS-NOT-RELIABLE-20-battery-pulls-one-shoot/m-p/321674

https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS/EOS-R5-known-bugs/td-p/317215

https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/jeieo7/r5_freeze_ups/

could be a repeat of the unreliable 1dxmk3 lock-ups, but canon hasn't been able to fix these r5 lock-ups with firmware:

https://petapixel.com/2020/03/26/canon-confirms-1d-x-mark-iii-lock-up-issue-firmware-fix-coming-soon/

My Sony a7RIV has done something similar several times. It'll just stop AFing for some reason, and a quick restart gets it back to a working state.

Far toooo long so far, with no end in sight:

MILC man doing his thing.............👹🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

True. But you've got to admire the consistency.

Wow, someone's panic and insecure ;)

But the R5 doesn't overheat in all of the modes that the A7RIV also has. It only over heats in the modes that the A7RIV doesn't have at all (4kHQ, 8k, 4k120 and 4k60) .

So I agree with Richmonthefish, it should be higher rated than the A7RIV

@lawny13

If you purchased a car that is advertised as a 1000hp car but it only delivers 200hp, should it be rated high?

This is the case, if you can't rely on the camera on its best quality video output, why should it be rated higher?

Are you saying that DPR's review isn't correct? Or it lacks the knowledge? It was reviewed by professionals who know what they need in the camera and the R5 did not deliver that. It is as simple as this.

ElGhuraify

My reference was how it compares to the A7RIV. I think that was blatantly obvious.

If a shop advertised a Porsche to me claiming that it could fly and it didn't, I would STILL rate it higher than a Saab.

So in terms of video specifications IT IS better than the A7RIV. Just on rolling shutter alone it is way better.

@lawny13

And I am still in the context of the comparison between the two. You nor myself are better than the people who reviewed it, it is all about reliability, If the camera is not suitable to do the job, then it will be rated LOWER than the camera that can do the job.

If your Porsche stopped in the middle of the road going to work then the Saab is better because you will have no issues with the car.

Accept it or not, the R5 is NOT reliable for videos nor hybrid use. It is stated obviously in the review.

End of the story

elg, you make no sense, the video capabilities of the r5 are far beyond the sony. end of story.

btw, i shot video with my r5 on the weekend perfectly reliable. what are your experiences with the camera?

@Mammagamma

Well, what you are saying that DPR's review is not correct. What I have said is what DPR reviewers stated in this review. Clearly you didn't read the review, or you didn't read my comments correctly.

In case you missed it, here you go..

"Not so good for
Dedicated video users wanting the best video quality will be hampered by overheating; hybrid photo/video shooters that split their time but still need top-quality video."

"NOT GOOD"

If you can't accept this fact, I am sorry for you. Just enjoy what you have and don't be oversensitive because your camera is not reliable.

End of discussion

you judge on what you read and call it a fact.
i judge on what i use myself.
think about it...

@Mammagamma

OP was about this article and the reason behind the rating. I didn't judge anything because there are people who do that for you and me. If I want something, I will not refer to you, nor to any article here. I will buy whatever that covers my need.

If its not doing me good, then it is not good. As simple as that.

And OP was right in his observation that the R5 is perfectly reliable in every video mode that the Sony a7R IV offers. On top it offers unique video modes that come with a time limit. that this leads to a lower rating is just plain ridiculous. PERIOD!

Well, let the OP work hard and join the professionals that are working in this website for years to teach them how they should do their jobs.

It is rated lower so deal with it, we don't need this drama over an unreliable peace of equipment.

@mammagamma

Well, just to let you know, I am using Sony, Canon as well as Nikon and don't have any issues with any brand as long as it cover my needs.

"Who is we btw?"
(are) not is.. And (we) are the people who don't care about your whining because there are other equipment that can do the job better than yours.

Do you have anything else to add? I do have some time to waste now

@ElGhuraify: "If you purchased a car that is advertised as a 1000hp car but it only delivers 200hp, should it be rated high?"

This analogy is flawed.
1.) It can go 1000hp but not for extended periods. Yes it is unreliable in many instances but the advertised speed or resolution is still available.
2.) The modes that it is reliable is still BETTER than the A7RIV. Thats a 100% fact in most categories. Better IBIS, better colors(subjective admitted), better AF, 10 bit video(since you mentioned what Pros need right)....not to mention articulating screen and a higher resolution screen.

R5 is still better in the reliable modes.

If sony said they could give you 8k recording via a firmware update, but it'll have a record limit and overheat...would you say give it to us anyways or would you say no. Any person with common sense would say 'give it to us'.

@KZ7

The car analogy is right on no offence.

If you are going to drive a Ford Fiesta at 70 km/hr and a high end Porsche at 70 km/hr the Porsche will do better. It won't have any issues going up hill or quickly over taking other vehicles. It is more nibble and will handle better.

If you NEED to go faster than it can and does so better than the Fiesta. Hence it is the better car.

Same goes with the sony to canon comparison here. You have more options on tap. But when you look at the like for like features the canon beats the sony simply because it has a faster read out speed and thus has less rolling shutter and thus delivers better results.

Don't go flawing something because you think you want to run it full out ALL the time and it gives out. You go run a Ford Fiesta or whatever other vehicle to its limit all the time and see if any of them lasts, or if you won't end up in a wreckage because it doesn't handle well.

The R5 does all the A7RIV can and does it better. AND it has extra options that are limited by overheating.

So the logic of anyone who disagrees with me is that the R5 would have been rated better than the A7RIV if the extras are taken out??? So take out 4k60, 4k120, 4kHQ and 8k.... and it is a better video camera. Like WHAT?? How does that make sense?

How about you all then just ignore and pretend those extras aren't there??? Easier that way.

@KZ7

Fuel and tyres are batteries for cameras, which we can agree that Canon is weak at the moment for ML. However, if the car overheats more often and needs 1-2 hours to drive again for 2 miles!

Its all about reliability. If it doesn't get the job done, then all of this 8K and other features are worthless.

Experts who tested the camera said it so deal with it.

@Lawny. I agree with you which was my point. Using the car anology to say the R5 video features are not as good as the Sony A7RIV, which is what Ghuraify was saying is flawed preciesly because it can do what that camera can plus you have the option of features that it doesn't have. The fact that there are limits to how long you can use those features for doesn't change the fact that the A7RIV doesn't have them.

@KZ7

Could you refer where I said anything besides reliability? In which case I clearly refered to the tests results and review of the camera done here?

Kindly if you think that this review is not legit, then all of the review is not correct.

Again, the R5 is not reliable and it is even admitted by Canon users.. Parker Walbeck said that he wouldn't even consider it as an option for his work because of that.

It is not a perfect camera, you don't need to be sensitive about that.

The R5 is not perfect, I don"t think anyone is saying it is, certainly not me. Neither is it unreliable when used in the same modes as its direct competitor which is the Sony A7RIV. It has limitations in modes that the A7RIV does not have. For stills shooters and casual video shooters that is not an issue. For heavy video shooters that want to make extensive of use 8k, 4k120, then it probably isn't the camera for them. Of course if you want to shoot 8k with a hybrid stills / video camera then the R5 is the only game in town.

TOF guy: This bugged me when I read it as well. However, after using the R5 for a while now I don’t see a single issue with softness or smear, but I do see the higher DR and cleaner files. So from an OCD standpoint I don’t like it, but when it brings me two positives and I can’t see a negative, why is it still a bad thing?

TOF Guy.
This was debated and analyzed by the guys who understand sensor tech best, including the guys behind RAW digger.
They were reluctant to call it NR. Its not the same as traditional NR.
They couldn't find loss in quality from it.
If anything it is a benefit and something others will likely try to adopt.

Have you got a link for us, MMP?

You won't regret buying the RF100-500mm. It is great especially for a 5x zoom. The price is high but flexibility is key for me. Smaller as well when compared to using a 1.4x TC. Ken Rockwell has a good review of it.
I did a direct comparison with a 400/2.8II and 600/4II and yes there is some difference in bokeh but very much decreasing returns to scale when considering the cost differential

The A7riv is not a good low light camera. Lots of noise and very little detail despite the hi res sensor..
There are a number of buyers who returned the A7riv and bought an A7riii or other camera because of this problem.

Huh? The Canon is great, but so is the A7Riv. I don't know what they were smoking. The Canon does look awfully good, though. Can anyone spot me $3800?
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5_14,Nikon%20D850_14,Nikon%20Z%207_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4_14

"Your chart show the R5 is better at ISO51200 than the A7Riv is at ISO 800."

No, look again. It's 1.2 electrons for the A7Riv at ISO 800, and 1.6 electrons for the R5 at ISO 51200. Smaller is better, but they're both very, very good. Keep in mind that the chart and the high-ISO DPR images represent what is possible at the very lowest light levels, where NO camera can give a clean image. These are all very good low-light cameras.

Here's a better link: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5_14,Nikon%20Z%207_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4_14

Visually the R5 noise looks a little finer grained. I don't know what accounts for the discrepancy. You can trust your eyes, but if it makes a big difference to you, you should download the RAW files and look at the files with the manufacturer's software.

Both the A7Riiii and A7Riv use pixel binning and can't oversample.
And while a static scene may look sharp, they both have very limited bit rates. That means lots of artifacts and lost f there is any motion. Most cameras use bot rates 2-4 times greater.
And to make matters worse they both only support h.264 which is much less efficient that h.265. That means the Sony limited bit rate has only half the data compared to a camera with a similar bit rate using h.265.
And lets not forget the Sony are only 8 bit 4:2:0. Their video is consumer cheap camcorder quality at best.

@More MegaPixels "Both the A7Riiii and A7Riv use pixel binning and can't oversample."

My mistake....I'm getting A7Riii and A7iiii mixed up.

I read two long threads in the forums in this. Some still are are not sure if is proper to call it noise reduction and they couldn’t prove if there was any loss in detail. The benefits appear to outweigh any downsides (if there even are any).
Whatever Canon is doing if other companies can replicate it, will get copied with all sensors in the future.

The noise reduction applied the RAW files is hilariously blown out of proportion here. Had Photons to Photos not identified the minimal application in the RAW images, this wouldn't be a topic because the end user has absolutely no idea. It's even been said that there is a chance that Canon has found a way to apply this NR off the sensor because it's less destructive to the image quality than applying it in post. It appears to help the images achieve a higher usable dynamic range. Either way, it's only happening below ISO 800 and the images looks incredible - so the Canon haters can just relax. It's just another stupid talking point.

I kept Sony out of the comparison for politeness sake.