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.

Log in or register to post comments


Jeff ABC's picture

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.

James Jones's picture

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.

Tom Reichner's picture

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.

Jeff ABC's picture

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.

Tom Reichner's picture

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.

Geir Anders Rybakken Ørslien's picture

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.

Zak Zak's picture

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?

Trond Skogdal's picture

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..

Euan Gray's picture

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


Mike Nguyen's picture

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.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

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

Albert Harris's picture

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

Timothy Roper's picture

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.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

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

Tom Reichner's picture

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.

Kirk Darling's picture

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.

Timothy Roper's picture

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.

dale clark's picture

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

Jan Holler's picture

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.

Euan Gray's picture

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.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

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.

Tom Reichner's picture

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.

Gireesh Chandra Prasad's picture

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.

Giovanni Marino's picture

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.

Kirk Darling's picture

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

More comments