There Will Be No Canon 5D Mark V, and Photographers Will Lose out as a Result

There Will Be No Canon 5D Mark V, and Photographers Will Lose out as a Result

A few days ago, Fstoppers’ Alex Cooke asked if the camera world would ever see a Canon 5D Mark V. According to the latest rumor, the answer is no, almost certainly not.

According to a source that spoke to Canon Rumors, development of the camera was stopped some time ago. This ties in with Cooke’s assumptions that we would have heard something if such a camera was in the pipeline and the fact that Canon has now pivoted hard to mirrorless, potentially leaving the 1D X Mark III as its last hurrah in the world of DSLR.

No doubt, many will be disappointed if this rumor proves true, and some will wonder whether this news combined with the recently released R5 and R6 leaves something of a hole in Canon’s lineup. For a photographer wanting to upgrade to mirrorless from, say, a 5D Mark II or III, the options are as follows: spend a huge amount of money on the 45-megapixel R5 complete with a load of video features that you will never need, downgrade your resolution by opting for the 20-megapixel R6, or buy the Lorem Ipsum of mirrorless cameras, the 30-megapixel EOS R.

Are photographers losing out slightly until the next round of Canon cameras? Does the 5D Mark IV have an obvious upgrade for anyone who doesn’t shoot video? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

If you're passionate about taking your photography to the next level but aren't sure where to dive in, check out the Well-Rounded Photographer tutorial where you can learn eight different genres of photography in one place. If you purchase it now, or any of our other tutorials, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout. 

Andy Day's picture

Andy Day is a British photographer and writer living in France. He began photographing parkour in 2003 and has been doing weird things in the city and elsewhere ever since. He's addicted to climbing and owns a fairly useless dog. He has an MA in Sociology & Photography which often makes him ponder what all of this really means.

Log in or register to post comments

I kind of foresaw the death of DSLR and switched to mirrorless years ago. Sony camera was not cheap but ended up saving money for me.

I mean, considering the price of RF vs Emount glass it was the less expensive route. I want to see Sonys take on the f/2 zooms. I think a 35-85 f/2 could be amazing if it was able to be packaged roughly the same as the 28-70 f/2.

I am glad that you are happy with your decision to go mirrorless early on, but I don't understand how that saved you money. If you care to elaborate, I would be interested to know how you saved money by switching over.

If I hadn't switch, I would have bought more DSLR body and EF lenses which would decrease in value because DSLR system is dying. If I waited till today to switch to the RF system, I would definitely spent more money because RF lenses are more expensive. Tamron lenses for Sony are well priced and practical for my need. I believe most people will switch to mirroless eventually, and doing it early will save some sunk cost.

I'm glad that an early switch worked for you, but I am taking the opposite approach. I plan to use my DSLRs and EF lenses for about 5 or 6 more years. By that time, there should be plenty of mirrorless R mount lenses available on the used market in the classified ads.

I never buy photography gear new, and always wait until a lens or body has been discontinued or around a long time before I buy, so that I can get it for about 40 cents on the dollar.

I'll probably buy the Canon R5 in 2025 or 2026, when prices have dropped to the $1000 to $1200 range. I will look for similar depreciation on used R lenses before I switch over and buy in.

I think I am saving A LOT of money doing it this way, as opposed to switching to mirrorless early and being forced to buy stuff that is either new, or hasn't depreciated much yet.

My approach exactly as well, Tom. Bought my 5DMkIII's, my 5DMkIV and my entire set of sweet L-primes and L-zooms second hand. Never felt like I'm missing out on tech for stills reportage work. I do of course feel the GAS for the R5 and the RF lenses, and I realize that mirrorless is the future, but I never miss anything when I'm actually out in the field and having a blast shooting with the trusty old DSLR kit, nor when I get home to the Mac and enjoy the editing.

Note to self: Make sure that I'm spending more time using cameras than reading about cameras.

You will also save money in servicing. DSLR costs more due to the mirror.

In essence, the 5DV is the R5. It’s an upgrade and to be honest would we really want to see a DSLR 5DV in the age of mirrorless?

This means that Canon is abandoning DSLRS and aiming fully on mirrorless. I guess they are cutting development costs a lot by doing this. In one way its a shame, but at the same time is there really a need for DSLRS in the future? Personally I have a 5d mk4 and Fuji XH-1, and am super happy with the options this gives me, hope to enjoy the 5d mk4 for many years to come, but doubt I would upgrade to a 5d mk5. I guess the photographers who are loosing out are the ones that don't want to switch to mirrorless and swap all the insanely expensive glass..

"but at the same time is there really a need for DSLRS in the future?"


Why is the R5 not the obvious upgrade to a 5D Mk IV? They are in the same price class, notwithstanding video it represents an upgrade in features, and can easily take your EOS lenses allowing you an upgrade path as fast or as slow as you want. As a Nikon shooter, it’s impressive what Canon put in the R5.Yeah we all long for the days when there was a camera for every niche but that’s not really possible in a market that is close to imploding, not to mention that path led to the nickel and diming on features that everyone hated about Canon.

I never thought they would make one after rumors of the R5.

The future is mirrorless. We all knew this was coming.

The 5DIV still sells for almost $4k, and has loads of video features many don't need. So how would a Mark V change the equation? You'd still be paying loads of money for a camera that has many features many don't need. The only difference is, no mirror and shorter battery life with the R5. Now, lenses are also an issue, but you didn't mention that.

5Dm IV went down in price. Body alone is $2500.00.

Or, be wise and buy a used one for $1400 or thereabouts. Or be even smarter and wait 6-8 months, and pick up a used one for $1200.

Lenses aren't really an issue, given that EF lenses with the adapter work just as well on R-mount cameras as EF lenses ever did (if not slightly better) on EF-mount cameras. Going to the EOS R has not changed my intended lens replacement schedule in the slightest. Well, maybe a little. I am lusting after that RF 70-200, but then, my current EF 70-200 Mk II is long in the tooth anyway.

Battery life is more of an issue. I'm rather surprised that the R5 did not introduce a significantly different battery technology. That's going to have to happen for mirrorless to go much farther.

Where Canon screwed up the new cameras is trying to be cute and light to draw in Sony users that love that camera on a keychain feel. This left no room for a larger battery or cooling system for video so they are the weak link. The camera should've been designed around the features and functions needed, not around the cuteness factor made popular by Sony.

Panasonic went the "big" route with fans and larger battery, and I don't think the big mirrorless cameras will be selling in the kind of volume that Canon needs to succeed. It's just not what most people want. Maybe it's Sony's fault, but that's where the market is now it seems. It's the reality more than a mistake. And BTW, I ran the measurements on an early Sony Alpha body once, and it was very close in size to my old Nikon FM. So it's not like Sony came up with something unprecedented and totally new here. Millions of people used to use film cameras of the same size as the A7X--including famous working pros.

I don't see success in releasing something with instructions on how long you have to wait because their camera overheats but we'll see in the reviews. I can see people now going "I JUST HIT THE RECORD BUTTON SO HURRY THE HELL UP BEFORE TIME RUNS OUT!!!!" But the good news is you'll have time to let the camera cool off as you're changing batteries. Waiting for real reviews so we'll see. Hopefully I'm wrong because I'd like to see Canon succeed.

To film users back in the day, digital was "cute".

I knew a photojournalist who in the early 90s was eagerly waiting for digital cameras. So "film users" is misleading. And in fact I have never heard that, I am coming from that era. In the beginning of the digital era film was still better and no full frame sensors were available. Of course digital photography could not keep up for a while. But that is just normal development in the technical world.

For film users, digital was then and remains convenient but expensive.

It's much cheaper to upgrade image quality by buying a better film than dropping a few thousand on a new camera that will be outdated in a couple of years.

Those were the guys who couldn't deal with computers on the first place. Many just left photography because they could not adapt. I had to wait for 98 to transition and never looked back. I only shot film when the limits of digital would require it. Rather than cute, it was really a monster to them.

Well digital meant no more buying film, no more dark rooms and no more scanners. For most people moving from slr to mirrorless doesn't change much in the way they work.

I greatly prefer larger, heavier camera bodies that fit my hand better and balance better with the huge telephoto lenses I use.

I completely disagree with this move to make cameras small and light. A larger camera not only feels better in the hand, and reduces hand and finger fatigue, but also allows for more powerful, longer-lasting batteries, more or larger processors, and greater cooling.

Personally, I see no advantage at all to a small camera, and no disadvantage to a large camera.

What I don't get is they take out the mirror so now they can make it smaller. Why not use the space to add a fan or something and leave the body alone?

Absolutely! I too prefer large bodies which are easier to use. I do not understand why camera makers underestimate this requirement. Thank you David for articulating this.

Completely agree! I prefer the handling of a nice DSLR, I bought the 5D Mark IV over a Mirrorless, and I would do it again.

Loads of video features? The reason I upgraded from the mark 3 was the 4k, then I realized how horrible mjeg was to work with and never used it for video again. I basically paid $3500 for a bump in resolution. Not doing that again with the R5 with its overheating video problem and recording limits.

If you really need 4K video for its own sake, you need a cine camera.

Yeah I learned that lesson and now have two bmpcc 6k cameras.

you paid $3500 without doing due diligence glove. can't blame canon. there's a sucker born every minute and you got played.

That's the point. Not falling for that again with the R5.

You must have really wanted an R5 from all the bitching you're doing! LOL!! ;-)
We who shoot primarily stills will love it. But hey, you might end up with one anyway for special projects or something when the new wears off and the price drops. But remember, Canon stated they had to strike a balance with size, weather sealing, features and performance as in they knew it was gonna have limitations and overheat unless they made some exceptions that would sacrifice something else they considered important. They knew it wasn't going to please everybody. Maybe they assumed people would realize that. I wasn't surprised to find out it overheated. I was surprised it would do 8K for 20 minutes before it said "thar she blows"! ;-)

Looks like they went all out to really knock out the competition so to no there were things that would turn people off (over heating, isis wobble, shorter battery life), it's a shame they didn't decide to improve all of that rather than say "This is what they get, we'll improve it next time." If they are sticking with mirrorless as the main, I don't think their every 4 years releases is going to work anymore. The price would have to be cut in half now for me to get one.

No real loss. The 5dmkiv is still a heck of a capable camera in 2020. Used ones can be had for less than $1600 so why worry?

Can't wait for mirrorless to take over so I can buy a discounted Nikon D850. For studio flash work the DLSR is so much easier for me than Sony.

Nothing lasts forever, not really new, isn't it?
When Canon switched from FD to EF mount the cut was much harder since both systems were fundamentally incompatible. EF mount took off like a rocket and only a few looked back at their old lenses using quirky adapters. Now the transition is much softer with the EF-R adapters out. I would think that the 5D4 and 1Dx3 will still be produced for several years and they will be serviced. So there are plenty of options to chose from. But yes, some homework is required by everyone to determine which way to go. The signs were on the wall already for years.
The point of 'buying options that one does not need' is none. In all DSLRs before, people got loads of functions they never needed. That's normal since the advent of video in photographisch cameras. But then, once features and functions are available they tend to get used, slowly.


I mean, the R5 pretty much has you covered. Change is good, the RF lenses are superior to EF lenses, and EVFS have reached a point that they can replace OVFs for 99% of photography.

Canon users just need to wait out some growing pains while Canon expands the RF lens lineup. In a couple of years almost all major focals will be covered and I’m sure there will be plenty of glass options.

The price is the only barrier but your also paying for superior glass.

What's the refresh rate of the R5's EVF? It's got to be pretty high for you to claim that it can replace OVF. At least for people like me (and I'm far from being the only one) who get headaches from looking at screens that flicker at too low frequencies.

The EVF is 120hz.

So your saying you get a headache when looking at almost all monitors, TVs, and smart phones? Because the majority of those run at 30-60hz.

On fixed images, no problem. On fast movements, I get dizzy yes. And I don't stick my eyes 2 centimeters from my phone or laptop screen, contrary to an EVF.

It's a honest concern, that I need to thoroughly test before spending 4500 euros...

You can run the EVF at 120, but the drawback of reduced battery life is pretty heavily exacerbated by it.

So, the mirrorless camera is now the best thing since sliced bread is it? Well, maybe, until Canon, for example, develop a camera that's the size of a smartphone 😀 (That's mirrorless!)

It isn’t half amusing reading comments from gammons moaning about mirrorless cameras and the demise of their beloved DSLR penis extensions

Let's see. SONY A-Mount users bitched until the cows come home over a lack of a new model. Sony releases one........crickets.....nobody buying. Mirrorless is where it's at. If the new R5 lives up to the hype, I'll switch back to Canon (from Sony).

Lmao I didn’t even know Sony released another A mount body.

I have a 5D4 that I am currently using as my main camera body. I think highly of the 5D4, as it meets most of my needs quite well. I am not sure that an upgrade would be necessary. I can't think of what I would want in a 5D5 that I do not already have in the 5D4.

Eye and subject focus tracking would be great, but that is not really possible (or at least not optimal) with straight DSLRs, and is only possible when combined with mirrorless technology that focuses based on sensor readout. So a 5D5 would not have had these focusing features anyway, at least not at a level that would be fast and reliable.

If anyone who currently uses a 5D4 is disheartened at the news that there will not be a 5D5, I am interested in knowing what it was that you wanted in a 5D5. What is it that you need upgraded?

More comments