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.
for me it's knowing where the future glass will be. Do I invest in lenses that work now but through software could be made useless (EF) or do I just rent the random things I may need for now... It for sure tempers my purchases because I too have the 5DIV and plan to shoot on that for several years more.
Doug, you make some good points. The EF system is looking a little long in the tooth. For pros, a major concern should be that Canon will no longer create new lenses and eventually stop servicing them.
Moving forward into mirrorless, Canon has not focused enough on filling out their lens lineup. Instead, they have focused on creating expensive and exotic lenses that would be nice to have but are not all that practical for most pros (size, weight, limited focal range, no IS, HUGE pricetags).
Mirrorless is obviously the future - the only reason SLRs were developed was to enable the photographer to see exactly what the film sees. For digital this is now unnecessary since the live image can be displayed at pretty high quality in the viewfinder or back screen. Since the modern DSLR already has the rear screen, removing the point of failure in the mirror mechanism and the added weight/expense of a prism is something of a no-brainer.
I have a 6D and had thought about getting a 5D Mk. IV, but I don't think I'll bother. Film and a future change to MILC is the way to go, I think.
However, my EF lenses still work fine with my Rebel X and 300 film SLRs. I enjoy the occasional curious glances as people who obviously know what they're looking at see an L lens hanging off a cheap plastic entry level camera.
Euan Gray said,
"the only reason SLRs were developed was to enable the photographer to see exactly what the film sees."
Actually, SLRs do not allow us to see what the film sees. They allow us to see what the lens sees. There is a great difference. If you are looking through your SLR viewfinder at a bright sunny scene, but you have your settings under-exposed, the film will see a dark scene, while you see the bright scene. You are not seeing what your film sees.
Mirrorless does what you falsely say that SLRs do - mirrorless shows you what the sensor sees, as the view you have in your EVF shows you the scene that your lens sees, but also takes into account the settings that you have applied - not only the exposure settings, but also the color temperature and/or picture style settings. It shows you the picture that you are going to take, not the scene that is before you. SLRs never showed us the pictures that we were about to take. They never showed us exactly what our film saw.
I mean that the SLR allows you to see the same view that the film or sensor sees. How the film or sensor reacts to it is a separate question.
This contrasts with the TLR or rangefinder where the image the eye sees is not the same as the image the film sees.
SLRs DO show what the film sees. They DON'T show what the final picture will look like - only digital with live view can do that (irrespective of camera format).
Euan,
Thanks for clarifying what you had said earlier. You were right the first time ...... I stand corrected.
I guess this surprises me a little... They still need the EF line of lenses since many of their own Cine cameras use them, but if this is true they will now only sell one true DSLR? How hard would it have been to shove the features of the R5 into the 5D body and capture money on both lines. Now their EF line of lenses will have less and less customers, or are they going to kill that off as well? And then there's the fact that other Cine cameras use the EF mount so there's non canon customers that they lose if they kill the EF line of lenses.
Yes, of course they will kill off the EF lens line. That is the best way to "force" all of their customers to buy new R mount lenses. In a few years, all of the EF lenses will fall out of "supported" status, and Canon will no longer service them or make parts for them. Then we will all spend thousands and thousands of dollars on R mount lenses. Seems like good business strategy to me. The things that are good for us, the customers, are often not the things that are best for the corporation's bottom line. They make bank when they manipulate us and force us to buy things that we would rather not have to buy.
Tom, you hit the nail on the head.
That sounds a lot like a thought I've had a friendly lately where for roughly the last five years or so we kind of hit peak usefulness in technology and so much of what's released technology wise basically exists as a reason to sell more product. By that, I mean both more physical products and they're designed for content consumption rather than actually getting anything done.
Yeah, I am not buying anything from a company like Canon that's "forcing" me to buy a mirrorless alternative to the DSLR that I actually want.
Why would anybody want an DSLR in 2020? There are many reasons: Speed of focus acquisition is number one for me. If you don't know how to take photos in focus, Eye-AF is a real life saver, but don't assume that because YOU couldn't do it reliably with a DSLR, that nobody else could. Two is having an OVF. EVFs suck today and always will because of physics (speed of light and dynamic range). Again, if you don't know how to meter a scene, an EVF is a life saver, but just because YOU couldn't get your exposures right with an OVF, it doesn't mean that nobody else could. Add battery life as a distant third.
One thing that Mirrorless has over DSLRs is size and weight. Which is a huge plus, and it is the reason why I have an A7RIV.
I really do hope the future is not ONLY mirrorless, though. And if it is, it will be Sony and Fuji for me. I am not buying anything from Canon ever again. Canon is piggish. They could easily make a 5DV, but they think they will make a tinny little bit more money by not making one and they could not care less about screwing any of their existing customers. I would like to see Canon lose their No. 1 spot in the photography world. Heck, I wouldn't mind if they went bankrupt...
Battery life, Battery Life, BATTERY LIFE...
.
I don't understand how this is not a huge issue that's discussed A LOT more. When shooting Theater, Sporting Events, or other live performances, I might capture up to 2000 frames. How many batteries would I need to do this using the R5? I mean I look through the viewfinder for hours. The EVF needs to be active for most of that, correct?
BINGO. There are many issues that I see as a penalty for the still shooters and in favor of the video. I'm starting to view Canon as video driven company more than anything.
Keep in mind we now how to pay for heavy engineering and technology to make sensors cope with video features.
Do you imagine the research needed to coold down enough a FX sensor capturing continuous 120fps 8k without bining and the whole CPU heat dissipation ?
Do tech lovers realise how much this run to high video specs is heavily hjolding back new sensor technology back ? A new substrat appear that can give us 22EV of DR, with real RGB photosite, but unable to cope with more than 6-8 fps because slower tech, what are you thinking manufacturer and youtubers will do with such a photocamera ? never release it because it does not sport a video feature... Sorry, I understand some short pockets can need the video features of nowadays photocameras, but in fact all sensors are designed to cope with video in first place, as the whole product will never be bankable now.
I know, many here will tell us video is a must have, but no, for photographer, pro, amateur or not, you don't do still photography and video simultaneously.
Want to cover an event in still photography and video, sorry but a one guy doing all will only do one part properly, or both like crap. Ok, some genius may be able to pimp everything fine enough to lure its customers, but customers could get far better stills or far better vids with dedicated photographer and videographer.
Bref, all that run for faster EVF, faster fps and faster/hirez video in photocameras are just giving us videocameras that are doing nice photography as a side effect. I know many will laugh hard at that opinion. Just imagine how much more research and engineering would need a CMOS substract replacement if it has to cope first video ? Do you realise you have to solve that Bayer CFA problem again if you get new specialized photosites ? How would cope CPU with new video routine, etc...
So, ok, I agree since 2014 serious photocameras are much better than what we need, but we really get zero to none innovation in the photo side of ILC cameras. Ok, now we get really good OSPDAF, with eye tracking for guys photographing pets and girls, but I do not do portrait, and I see ZERO improvment in DR since SONY 2012 sensor gen, nor better accutance as that crappy BAYER CFA is still making datasheet lie as we still do not have real 24/36/45/50Mpx RGB sensors but only RGGB interpolated 24/36/45/50M pixels. Just look back at FOVEON or SuperCCD tech to imagine where we could have photo centric sensors if video was not a requirement.
That's my point, cameras are now designed for video and Canon is turning into a video camera company. It's becoming obvious that they need the still photography to help offset the cost of these developments.
Travel photography, too. And if you're not in a place that loses electricity from time to time (aka, load shedding) and doesn't have a diesel generator for backup, you're not trying hard enough!
This is the optical viewfinder issue. They don't require power, you can even size up your subject without turning on the camera, and no lag because nothing is faster than light.
I don't think it's discussed more because most photographers have gotten used to carrying a couple of extra charged batteries around with them in their pockets or camera bag. Almost all of the photographers I know always have a small arsenal of batteries with them any time they shoot. They don't worry about battery life because it has become commonplace to take the measures necessary to ensure that they always have a fresh battery. It has become an everyday habit to put a couple batteries in one's pocket when heading out the door to go shoot.
5D Mark V with the same specs as the R5 but with a cooling fan/system - would buy it in a heartbeat and probably pay more for it.
Abso-freaking-lutely! But, make mine a 6D 😁
Is the kitty miserable because she's just found out there won't be a 5d MK V? I feel the same way.
This is very disappointing news if it proves correct.
The amount of dumb is astounding when I hear people complain about video features they don't need. You do understand that the same processing power needed to read the sensor fast enough for 20fps stills, is what allows for the video features. A camera without video recording would make no sense as most photo journalists and sports photographers who would buy a fast-shooting high-end stills camera also are asked to grab video clips today.
If you need a camera that does 20fps stills, you are going to pay $4k or more, and it's NOT because of the video features.
Just as it would be dumb to assume every one needs a 20 frame per second camera.
You know they make affordable cameras that shoot perfectly good images at 3-5 fps like the 6D and the R.
I skipped the 5D Mark2... and still no use for video today even with my older 1dxm2. It's not about the $ it's about the crap they add that is clearly not usable and not needed for most. There is no reasoning behind improving video capabilities while reducing the camera size and increase heat issues when video people don't even plan on using R lenses.
It's all a BS marketing ploy, whether the features are usable or not. The R5 is nothing but an overpriced lemon. I could see how someone like you that only wants a reliable stills camera would be massively disappointed.
Ok, here's my alternate take: Canon wanted something to bring the heat to Sony because a lot of people like Sony's mirrorless stuff and Canon was at risk of losing customers so they dropped everything, cranked out something to stem the tide and go figure, we'd end up with a pandemic and economic fallout that would butcher their resources. The EOS-1Dx Mark III made it out of the stable before things got bad. The 5D Mark 5 and R5 were still in development, and considering that the DSLR's weren't in a bad place and to this day, the 5D4 is still selling like crazy, but that the EOS R/RP were basically prototypes, they needed to get the R5/6 out ASAP. Now, there's still lots of supply chain issues out there, so I can see why they would probably dedicate their skeleton crew to the mirrorless bodies for now, and get back to the DSLR development eventually. There's still lots of people that use them and prefer them, and there's nothing wrong with having both systems, but Canon had to take on Sony. We'll get our new DSLR's. It'll just take longer.
the answer to this headline is No.
Jon,
I am a little confused by your reply. There was no question in the headline, was there? To me, it is worded as a statement, not a question.
I will continue to hold my Canon 5DmkIV and my Canon 6D as long as they continue to operate.
After and only after, I will consider the Canon mirrorless camera to switch to. I do not intend to sell off an excellent photographic system such as Canon's Reflex one, to switch to a system that still has uncertainties.
So my comment goes the other way is there really any need for mirrorless? Why would anyone weigh $6,000 on a camera unless it was a Canon 1D for professional use there's no way that I would waste that kind of money on the r5. The quality of pictures from mirror cameras is so good why do we need to go to mirrorless it's just about companies trying to make stupid amounts of money on a camera body.
Mirrorless design allows for focusing to happen right on the sensor itself, which ensures much more precise and reliable focus accuracy than DSLRs provide, and eliminates the need for micro-focus adjustment. MFA is an enormous pain in the ass because it changes with every change in focal length, distance, and lens.
Because focusing is done via sensor readout, technologies such as face detect focus, eye detect focus, and object detect focus are rapidly developing into very fast, accurate and reliable focusing tools ..... much more so than was ever possible with mirrored design.
Another extremely useful benefit that mirrorless design provides is focus peaking, which is unable to be implemented in conventional mirrored DSLR technology.
Mirrorless design also allows the photographer to see exactly what the image will look like immediately before the shot is taken, whereas DSLR design only shows the scene that is about to be photographed, and does not take into account the exposure and other settings that will affect what the image will look like.
So we have many new tools available to us with mirrorless technology that were never possible with mirrored DSLR design. These tools are very useful in certain genres of photography.