A Canon R5 and R6 Review: Good Cameras, Terrible Marketing

There have been few camera releases rife with more discussion than the two new Canon mirrorless bodies, but there's a discussion to be had that isn't about overheating issues per se.

When the spec sheet was sent out for the Canon R5 and Canon R6, I was stunned. But I also — like many — suspected it might be too good to be true. Well, it was and it wasn't. The 8K video options, while shiny, have been plagued with problems and limitations to the point where the feel akin to a beta feature for a future build. The problem is, Canon took this shiny new feature which was unprecedented thus far in the industry, and made it the flagship, USP of the R5. So, when it ran into issues, the whole launch was undermined.

That's sad for a few reasons and Gerald Undone does the best job of unpacking it I've seen so far. Both the R5 and the R6 are strong stills cameras — really strong. Furthermore, hybrid shooters who only need 4K at 30 fps will also be more than happy with these Canon offerings. But video specialists with an interest in dynamic range or even a "need" for 8K in some capacity (even if that's just future proofing) should stay away.

It's a shame that the 8K of the R5 and its issues have overshadowed an otherwise excellent mirrorless camera from Canon. What are your thoughts on how they were marketed?

Log in or register to post comments


Dan Donovan's picture

I HIGHLY recommend this review. So well done. An instant YouTube classic by being objective based on facts. And no matter what, anyone considering purchasing an R5 or R6 should at least watch the wrap-up at the end. You will know EXACTLY if one of the cameras is right for you.

Christian Durand's picture

taking advice from someone else about witch camera is good for you is a terrible advice .
Rent the camera and you can tell if you like it or not !!

John Pouw's picture

I think that is a little black and white. Reviews and advice narrow down options, otherwise you must have a huge 'rent before you buy' budget if you don't watch/get either. No one tells you which one to buy, but getting advice/recommendations is helpful for most.

Dan Donovan's picture

Sorry for the confusion. Of course basing a camera purchase solely on someone else's advice is not smart. But, not getting some help is not wise either. Gerald is well-respected and he spent DAYS testing it. Everyone else is not going to rent the camera and spend days testing it. Watching the review is quite amazing. Gerald does not give a blanket buy it or don't, but at the end gives specific examples of when it is good and when it is bad. After watching the video, be sure to check out the comments (on YouTube). There are over 1100 comments and after going through many of them, I could not find one that is negative. All YouTube tech reviewers can learn from watching this review.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

If you don't care about video, this review has only 2 minutes out of 26+ about using these cameras for stills. Then basically he says there are few conditions where the video is worth buying.

Greg Silver's picture

I can't agree with this headline. I can't ever remember Canon ever doing terrible marketing. I'd give Canon the crown for top marketing from any of the camera companies. They created a buzz like no other for their R6 and R5 cameras and led many that they NEED 8K.

However, like in most marketing, I believe Canon over promised and under delivered. Sure - the R6 and R5 are solid cameras but they do miss the mark (Imho) as something I could count on reliably for production work.

Canon is notoriously famous for their marketing that gets people excited but in the end lets their customers down.

Don't get me wrong - I like Canon and want them to succeed. My first DSLR was a Canon, but there are better options out there.

Dillan K's picture

I disagree. If Canon had not championed the 8k so much, the disappointment would not weigh so heavily on these releases. That's just my opinion. There are a lot to like about these cameras. 8k video isn't one of them. Its implementation made the feature merely a gimmick.

Eivind Larsen's picture

I dont understand the use case for these hybrid cameras, could someone please enlighten me. If you need to shoot 30 min or longer non stop, your camera is not really free to take those in-between still shots, so you need a second camera for stills anyway. Are you not better off with one real cine camera and one real stills camera?

Stefan Brink's picture

For a lot of people this will either be a budget question (buying 2 cameras or even a single cine camera is obviously much more expensive) or a question of how much equipment you want / can haul around. There is always an upside on having a camera that can do both things very good.

Eivind Larsen's picture

The budget limit hits most of us, I'm sure... but if one needs to both record very long video segments and take stills in-between (e.g. weddings), one would still need two bodies.
As I'm purely doing stills, I'm very happy with my A7R4.

Edwin Cobbinah's picture

I just read a post at DPReview abouthe whole overheating issue, since that is the most talked about concerning this camera at moment. A user cliams (from another forum) he was shooting Motorcross event doing pictures only and still had the camera go off for overheating.
My low end 24 megapixel DSLR has never had overheat issues in extreme sunny conditions shooting pictures unless am doing video.
From DRReview the countdown to overheat starts the moment the camera is turned on.


This is bullshit. An anom user on the internet.

And reviewers like Gerald, DP review and others tried to overheat with only stills and couldn't.