A Review of the Canon EOS R5 for Stills Photography

The Canon EOS R5 has finally hit the market, and it brings with a wide range of incredible video features, but in addition to those, it is a highly capable stills camera. If you are looking at the EOS R5 for its stills features, this great video review will show you what you can expect from it.

Coming to you from Gordon Laing, this helpful video review takes a look at the Canon EOS R5 from a stills photography perspective. No doubt, with its marquee feature of 8K raw video, the EOS R5 has gathered a lot of attention for its video capabilities, but it is no slouch on the stills side either, sporting a 45-megapixel sensor, 12 fps continuous shooting using the mechanical shutter (20 fps using the electronic shutter), Canon's most powerful autofocus system ever (which incorporates Deep Learning technology for tracking and offers 1,053 AF points with full frame coverage), in-body image stabilization with up to eight stops of compensation, GPS, a 5.76-million-dot electronic viewfinder, vari-angle rear LCD touchscreen, wireless connectivity, and weather-sealing. Altogether, the EOS R5 looks to be quite an impressive camera for stills work and sure to please lots of Canon photographers. Check out the video above for Laing's full thoughts. 

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments
12 Comments

Who is still doing still images ? Did no one here know the future is 'moving pictures' ???
Look, HEIF is coming, and we'll have finished to look at thoses boring fixed pictures. We want moving picture (at least the market and influencers).

It is really confusing Canikon still dare to release photocameras that can take photos instead of choosing 2s in the video feed put into a revolutionary HEIF moving photography file. Hopefully this revolution will come with SONY... still waiting to see how the A7S III do it, but granted, they will give that to us everwhere.

Couple of things I want to point out / comment on in this video...

Comparing it to the A7SIII when only talking about the photo performance, really??? That's a ridiculous comparison, as a side-by-side with the likes of the A7RIII & IV, or the Nikon D850 / Z7 would be FAR MORE appropriate comparisons...

Gordon's image samples were only done in JPEG, and no RAW side-by-side samples or comparisons were provided, which is a shame especially for the dynamic range comparisons, since JPEG is pretty much crap when tasked with retaining dynamic range, though it did demonstrate the efficiency of the new processing engine at applying, what I'd call pretty good noise reduction algorithms for the JPEG output, especially when measured against predecessor Canon cameras.

Now, the elephant in the room, the price of this camera, when compared to ACTUAL competing models in its segment, which is NOT the A7SIII:

Sony A7RIII: $3299.99 CAD
Sony A7RIV: $4199.99 CAD
Nikon Z7: $4099.00 CAD (Currently on sale for $3899.00 CAD)
Panasonic S1R: $5199.99 CAD
Canon EOS R5: $5399.99

Now I'm sorry, but even though the new R5 outclasses these cameras in "some" areas, such as slightly better Eye AF, or slightly faster burst shooting rates against some of the models listed above, or slightly better weather sealing, once you factor in the price disparity between them, and then add to that the cost of the ATROCIOUSLY expensive RF glass for those who want to go all-in on the EOS R ecosystem, and this camera does NOT compete anywhere near favourably to the other manufacturers / ecosystems listed.

I mean, seriously, the A7RIII (my current camera), which is only 2.6 MP less resolution, and can basically do EVERYTHING photographically the R5 can do, with comparable burst speeds, dynamic range and image quality even at high ISO, coupled with a far superior lens selection due to the open format E-mount system, at $3299.99 CAD just wipes the floor with the R5.

Even if you go with the A7RIV, you're still paying $1200 CAD LESS, and gaining a 61MP image sensor, and only sacrificing a bit of high ISO noise performance.

There are other comparisons based on feature matrix I could make to illustrate these points, especially if I take a stab at the RF glass situation, but I think this is enough to get my point across, which is that the R5, whilst finally making Canon competitive again, doesn't push them ahead of the competition in any truly relevant metric, but rather just in the middle of the pack, all the while asking for a small king's ransom IMHO for a device that doesn't justify the price tag AT ALL.

Oh, and if I was a Canon shooter with the 5D Mark IV, I wouldn't even give this camera a second look, and would rather stay on the 5Dm4, or investigate switching platforms.

“ATROCIOUSLY expensive RF glass” 🤣

Sony gm 70-200mm 2400
Canon 70-200mm RF 2600 (a lot less obese lol)

sony 24-70 gm 2100 (No IS)
Canon 24-70 RF 2200 with IS

Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM 2100 (No IS)
Canon RF 15-35mm 2200 with IS (gains 1mm lol)

Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 1800 No IS
Canon 85mm (1.2) RF (with IS) 2600 I'll pay an extra $800 for 1.2 and IS 😉

I have better things to do than continue to go through your remarks like you did his. Just calm down and come off your sony high horse. Use gear that works for you and give fewer fucks about what other artists use. #fuckthegearwars

This has nothing to do a "Sony high horse", seriously dude, stop making things into something they aren't and being obnoxiously rude and condescending in the process.

I posted this to start a valid dialog and to address some of the shortcomings of Gordon's video, not to start a brand war. The points I list are valid, and your points, along with your attitude, are not relevant or welcome.

And why are they not relevant? Because on E-mount, you don't have to go with Sony G Master glass, you now have options from third-party vendors with EQUAL, if sometimes better quality, than a GM lens, so please be less ignorant in your responses next time.

White flag. Sorry. I've been trying to be less of a dick online. It still creeps up from time to time. My bad. Good day.

Na man you were being fair to him, he's just angry at the world so don't sweat it

"I have better things to do than continue to go through your remarks like you did his. Just calm down and come off your sony high horse. Use gear that works for you and give fewer fucks about what other artists use. #fuckthegearwars"

You think that was fair to me, and that I was angry? I wasn't angry in my original post, but was at this BS, to which even David apologized, so no, he wasn't fair, but at least owned up to it...

Actually the Canon R5 can do double the FPS of the A7III and has Animal AF tracking that the Sony currently can't match.

I currently use the A7III and I think both the R5 and R6 look amazing. If someone was to buy either body from Sony or Canon or even Nikon they would be getting an amazing camera that can do whatever they need it to for photography.

I would happily take an R5/R6 over my A7III or the 5DIV any day too.

I never brought up the A7III in my post above, and I wasn't talking about the R6 either, not sure why you're bringing this into the discussion as they are not what's being discussed here.

But even if it were, the A7III, whilst not having the frame rates of the R6 in 4K, still overheats FAR less, has 4MP more resolution, better low-light performance, and better lens selection, than the R6.

In any event, this isn't a "Brand A is better than Brand B" discussion, but rather to simply illustrate that there are better values on the market than what Canon has brought to the table with the R5/6 models.

The reason I bring up the A7III is that it’s the body that I use!

When it comes to A7III vs R6, there aren’t even thorough reviews for the R6 out yet by pure and reliable photographers like Dustin Abbott or Jared Polin so it would be hard to say if the Sony beats the Canon in low light. I also mentioned photography in what I said so video specs are relevant.

As a stills only photographer who couldn’t give a shit about video, the R5 and R6 blow everything out of the water. Everyone wanted an A9R for years and the R5 is that plus more. Only a Sony or Nikon fanboy wouldn’t be able to admit that.

Which again, is NOT what is being discussed here in the original article, nor in my post, so it is irrelevant to this discussion.

"As a stills only photographer who couldn’t give a shit about video, the R5 and R6 blow everything out of the water. Everyone wanted an A9R for years and the R5 is that plus more. Only a Sony or Nikon fanboy wouldn’t be able to admit that."

Not only are you veering off-topic, but now you also bring in troll-bait statements like this? BTW, you're bias towards Canon is also very clear in your last few statements, which means you would not be able to debate the pro's or con's in a dispassionate method either way.

I'm not going to participate in a discussion like this.

Good day.

I wouldn't say so much that I have a bias towards Canon, I'm just not a brand fanboy like some people that can't see a good camera when it exists due to brand.

At least we agree this is a waste of both of our time, mine especially.

Enjoy your little day