The Canon R5 announcement has pricked up the ears of most of the industry for one reason or another. Already, however, we're seeing photographers claiming they might switch manufacturers for it. Is Canon domination on the horizon again?
I'm in a peculiar position for this discussion. The knee-jerk reaction of many commenters on here and social media to posts about Canon or Sony is to yell "favoritism!" I started photography comfortably over a decade ago with a Canon; it was not a researched decision. A guy I worked with found a good deal on a used 350D, and I bought it. However, I became loyal and entrenched in a "Canon is the best" mentality. The more I learned, however, the less I cared about the manufacturer. Then came a time where my Canon bodies just felt dated, and the newest and best Canon DSLRs were out of my price range. So, what did I do? Like so very many, I moved to Sony and their a7 III.
I couldn't have been happier, and I'm still using Sony mirrorless bodies and lenses (albeit with some Canon glass I couldn't bring myself to part with). When I made this switch back when the a7 III was released, many colleagues asked why I hadn't written an article on the switch. I'm not certain, in all honesty. There was a lot of talk back then of Canon falling behind, and I didn't feel I needed to add to it. Now, finally, Canon appears to have gone all in on their hand, and that hand is a strong one.
The Canon EOS R5
We don't know everything about the R5, but what we do know is alluring. Canon pitches this new flagship full frame mirrorless in the following way:
New standards in high-resolution stills and phenomenal 8K video quality to match. The EOS R5 advances image quality to a whole new level for stills and movies with a blistering 20 fps electronic shutter or 12 fps mechanically. The EOS R5 is accomplished, refined and built for magnificence.
The specs as per their press release is:
- 8K RAW internal video recording up to 29.97 fps
- 8K internal video recording up to 29.97 fps in 4:2:2 10-bit Canon Log (H.265)/4:2:2 10-bit HDR PQ (H.265).
- 4K internal video recording up to 119.88 fps in 4:2:2 10-bit Canon Log (H.265)/4:2:2 10-bit HDR PQ (H.265). 4K external recording is also available up to 59.94 fps.
- No crop 8K and 4K video capture using the full-width of the sensor. (When in 8K RAW, 8K/4K DCI modes.)
- Dual Pixel CMOS AF available in all 8K and 4K recording modes.
- Canon Log available in 8K and 4K internal recording modes.
- A Canon first, the EOS R5 will feature 5-axis In-Body Image Stabilization, which works in conjunction with Optical IS equipped with many of the RF and EF lenses.
- Dual-card slots: 1x CFexpress and 1x SD UHS-II.
Well, even without all the information, that is a heavy hitter. Comparing this R5 to any of the newest Sony mirrorless cameras (let alone my now lowly a7 III) is something of a whitewash. 8K internal video recording at 29.97 fps with no crop is a huge moment for consumer cameras, particularly ones that aren't dedicated video bodies. I mean, even Canon's C300 III can't shoot 8K, and that's a dedicated "digital cinema camera." Compare it to Sony's a7R IV or a9 II (as the latter is their flagship), and it comes out victorious in pretty much every category. One other noteworthy area to highlight is the in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which we weren't sure was ever going to be in the cards for Canon after some previous statements.
As Andy Day pointed out, there still are some blanks to be filled in. One of which is the sensor resolution, which is currently being guessed, albeit an educated guess:
Canon News took this to mean that the R5 will shoot 8K DCI. It explains: 'This means to fit the DCI full width on the sensor, the sensor width must be 8,192 pixels wide, and because full-frame sensors are a 3:2 screen size, that means the height is 5,461 pixels.' And critically: 'This translates to a sensor resolution of 44.7MP.'
So, now comes the question: will there be a mass migration back to Canon from Sony?
Do We Go Back, Tail Between Our Legs?
Many photographers, videographers, and YouTubers are already talking about going back to Canon, and it's easy to see why. The R5 is a staggeringly powerful camera, delivering in pretty much every area you could ask. The spec is far above what we've seen in prosumer bodies and now, despite Canon taking their sweet time about really swinging for Sony in the mirrorless market, we're left wondering how Sony can react. Their a7S III is still hanging in the balance with specs not confirmed, and frankly, no one can see them revealing a body that can match the R5 pound for pound, let alone better it.
For what I'm working on in the coming years and with video taking more of a front seat than ever before, I must admit I'm tempted. As Diongzon mentions above, few need 8K resolution, but it does offer creative freedom. So, what's the rub of this ridiculously impressive piece of kit? It's difficult to say before we get our hands on. Several people have worried about overheating, but personally, I think it's unlikely Canon will release this with a fundamental problem like overheating. For me, I think it's going to be price.
The Elephant in the Room: Price
For me, mass migration from Sony back to Canon will hinge on price. We have no word on how much this will be yet, but I suspect it's not going to be low. Sony is known for their aggressive pricing, and even their flagship a9 II is $4,498. Canon rarely scrap around in the mud of competitive pricing, and so my gut reaction was that the R5 will be north of $5,000, which might I add, isn't an unreasonable price for what you're getting. If, however, they launch it nearer $4,000, I think many will make the switch, myself included.
What do you think of the R5? Did you move from Canon to Sony, only to now be debating a return fare? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.
Chasing specs seems ... the most boring way to approach photography.
I seriously hope this camera will be everything everyone hoped for. However, Canon have shown they are the crippling emperor of the camera world and I suggest everyone waits for the reviews. Canon being Canon, I think there will be large caveats.
Should be around $3500 for body alone..but there won't be quick ones to come back..people would checkout niceties after put to test..but by thst time Sony might come out with a new sensor and a new tech of choosing the focus point after u take a photo...
You must be just a gear sells man!!! Video.. a camera is for stills and Sony is the boss. Yes I was loyal from Canon Ftb to the T2i BUT Canon removes cameras from their site after two years with no firmware updates so you buy the newer stuff. Is that what you want? I went to Sony A7S (night monster) in 2014 then A7RM2 for IBIS both had on camera apps then A7M3 10 FPS and wider AF etc. ... Sony is the one to catch. No one will go back and there is not that many newbies with the $$$$ anytime soon. Example today everyone is using their phone or laptop/desktop cameras to video themselves or news or their shows, I mean BIG BUCK programs!!!! Today with everyone at home videoing each other and TV news and like late night shows from home (all are millionaires) why are they not using a camera for videoing a show from home? Looks like a time for camera sells men to do some home visits to the rich and famous and some networks, can you spell B O N U S. and some good audio gear tooooo! Do a survey of what shows are using what at home to broadcast to the world, uh! cell phone....laptop camera (looking up everyone's nose)....!!!!! and the audio echoing off the walls.....
Youtubers have their video cameras but not in everybody's hands.
Don't know. We will se in the future.
What I do know is that Sony should make some serious work with the ergonomics and the GUI of there camera's to make people stay. They also need some serious effort in APS-C body's and lenses to make people stay.
Not without a pricetag that undercuts their cinema line, a decent codec with file sizes the average person on a budget can afford to store, and a few lenses that cost less than $3,000. Sony had a better lens lineup at the a7/a7R launch period than Canon has up to this point.
In other words I'll believe it when I see it.
Neither for me, moved long time ago to other brands based their technological features and result in final image.
But I can see some YouTube influencers to jump what ever gives them more clicks....
And some follow them based their need to feel that they have the most popular gear on market and others admire then for it.
Highly doubt it. Some will go back, but lets see the camera reviewed first and lets see Sony's response. Clearly Sony has a history of sensor development above and beyond what Canon/others have had. I don't really see that changing. We will see I guess. I like my Sony. In truth, I'd look more into the Z mount than RF based on Sony sensors too.
Finally an article where people aren't moving away from Nikon to Sony. (humor)
Seriously? You're speculating on a camera that you haven't even touched yet? Sony has been ahead of the curve for years now and - with a dozen native FE lenses and a camera that does just about everything I could want - why would I consider moving to a brand that is reactive and not proactive? Mass migration? Just not going to happen.
Certainly looks like a beast on paper. Those that rely on video functions for income will, no doubt, strongly consider making the switch and I will make an assumption that many will already have Canon glass from pre-Sony times.
Enthusiasts and hobbyist will strongly consider the price point but, more specifically, what is the gap between the R5 price and the second hand value of their existing kit. I feel the A7RIV crowd will not be selling up but the A7RIII/III/S2 crowd will be very tempted. I'm a Nikon guy so I'll lurk in the shadows and leave Canon and Sony to duke it out...
Was there ever a mass migration from Canon to Sony?
Only in the TECHNOLOGY forums. :)
So many people, so much caring ... for a Brand or another
If I were a Sony user (I am a Nikon guy) I would be moving away from Sony asap. They will eventually pull out of the camera market entirely as it is not profitable anymore. Sony doesn't have a long storied history in photography. They will pull a Samsung and leave.
Yeah, that's been my theory all along. Not that long ago, Sony made most of its profits in the life insurance business. They're a huge conglomerate, and would have no problem doing with cameras what they did with PCs. Just get out of the business and move on if it's not making the cut. Plenty of other business opportunities out there.
Now wouldn’t that be interesting since Sony make many of nikon’s sensors.
Better dump your Nikon gear just to be on the safe side. In fact better just sell all your camera gear, it’s a dying industry ya know!? Smartphones n all that.
Sony will still make sensors, as that still makes them money.
Which camera manufacturer is profitable? Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus? Businesses die from lack of profitability, so they're all under threat, though my bet is that Olympus will be the next to fall. Others may not have Sony's luxury of being able to make a commercial decision. Or others may not have Sony's size and infrastructure to take the long view, and support a non-profitable sector of the business, until their competitors go under. Then there's brand loyalty, not that I have it to any camera company, but how many people who buy Sony camera's migrate to, or choose other Sony products? These are the 'adventitious' or indirect sales that add to profitability in other areas. It makes no sense to claim that " a long storied history" will keep other camera manufacturers in business, any longer than Sony.
At least moving back to Nikon!
I am more interested in an eye-focus as good as SONY has created than the 8K. Perhaps that will be the intention of the R6? The SONY dead-on eye focus was a game changer, IMHO.
I don't understand, are all photographers much wealthier than me? I try to buy my gear in as-new second hand condition, around 20-30% off retail price. But I still expect to lose 20-50% when I sell it (hard to ebay flash triggers etc). Does people sell off their camera, 85mm 1.4 pro lenses etc every time another brand launch a better camera?
I stuck to Nikon for 30 years, adding one lens at a time, until I switched to Sony.
Keeping all your gear and buying Canon R5 plus 3-5 pro lenses is even more cash heavy than selling off your Nikon/Sony...
Keeping the old lenses forever in case you switch back also doesnt make sense to me. We may love our old lenses, but they're no match for the current huge mega pixel cameras. Why keep a blurry old Nikkor 50mm f1.2 manual focus and attach it to an ultra high pixel count camera with the latest & greatest autofocus. (Stick that on a cheap second hand D3...)
"Are all photographers much wealthier than me?" An excellent way to frame it. My life's journey into digital has been a hodge-podge of cameras that were gifted to me (D995), purchased refurbed (D70s & D800), used (D200) NIB discontinued (D600) until the D850 came along at which time I paid full-boat when Best Buy finally had some stock. My lens are a gaggle of mostly AF-d primes and couple zooms and two Voigtlanders purchased on the secondary market.
Unless your job is dependent on some unique feature-set, then changing camera brands willy-nilly is an exercise in indulging one's vanity and a future YouTube video.
"Sony is known for their aggressive pricing, and even their flagship a9 II is $4,498."
Aggressive pricing? I could buy 3 times A Fuji X-T3. Never understood the hype about Sony.
It's a simple tool that should do the job. Don't know why people like to debate what is the best camera.
I know so many people who have the newest camera, but don't how to take great pictures.
Is the Sony frying pan better than the Fuji frying pen? Doesn't matter if I don't know how to cook.
Wait till one of the traditional manufacturers starts adding computational capabilities to their camera bodies like the smart phone guys do. It will start a whole new upgrade cycle with much greater than incremental improvements. Please throw in SIM card capability while your at it.
Seems to me that Nikon and Sony are much more interchangeable than Canon and Sony. You can get a Sony E mount adapter to Z mount due to similar flange distances and I think autofocus has been established as well by reverse engineering. Not only that they use the same sensor manufacturer. Which can make a smoother transition. Problem is Sony is making a great product so people going Nikon might be limited. Things cost lots of cash so SOny to Canon isn't in the cards for a lot of people.
So, I took a side trip to Nikon for about 12 years. Okay, for the first 8 years, I shot both Canon and Nikon before moving to Nikon entirely. However, like the author, I kept much of my Canon glass. When I discovered how well Sony performed with Canon glass--better than almost all then existing Canon bodies--I started moving over to Sony. Currently, I'm shooting both Sony and Nikon. The lenses I rely on are just too good to give up. However, I am tempted by the R5. If the AF is good enough to keep up with the 12/20fps (will the 20fps come with blackout-free AF like the A9?), it may be too hard to resist.
Am I the only one who thinks that the body will be under--maybe well under--$4000? It is the 5D replacement after all, and that body has stayed solidly in the mid-$3000 range on introduction. Canon wants to put a serious hurting on both Sony and Nikon, and it doesn't do that by making this a $5000 camera. Given how expensive those RF lenses are, I would not be surprised if the R5 is sold as a loss leader to suck photographers into buying several of those $2000+ lenses to mate with the new wunderkind.
I am in the same boat. I am using Nikon and Sony. I do miss shooting with the 1dx, just the feel of it in my hand and the indestructible body makes you worry about shooting in any situation. I hope this comes in under 4k as rumored but expect it at 4500 to compete against sony a9ii. I kept Nikon as I have 400/2.8, 300/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8. Amazing lenses and I love the Nikon color response in raw converter.
Yes, I have the 500mm PF for which there is no equivalent in Sony or Canon world, and I don't want to give up my Sony 135GM or 200-600 without something equivalent where I'm going. So, a straight up switch is out of the question. Thus, looking at my finances, I'm not sure how I could make the transition back to Canon. it's going to be $3500-$4500 just for the body, then tack on $2500 for a decent RF zoom, so the price of entry is $7k. I could use EF lenses for awhile, but I suspect that I'll lose a bit of performance going that route. Therefore, although the specs look fabulous, I think that I'm pretty well locked in the Sony-Nikon worlds.
So, you moved to Sony and their a7 III ? I do not see an EOS R5 creating a "Mass Migration" at its estimated price tag of 4000 to 5000 USD.
Heard it's going to be under $4000. I shoot Sony but if this is something that can help my business it is an easy decision. Every piece of Sony gear has paid back itself quickly. I have a variety of camera brands in my studio so I am very interested in seeing if this r5 will be a worthy addition.
I'm sorry, I just sigh when after I read an article like this. Mind you, the only Canon I have ever used in the past is an FTb......
Since many Sony users used Canon Glass I don't think the transition will be terribly difficult for them.
Really? Native Sony lenses work so much better and I doubt very much that anybody who uses advanced Sony bodies is using adapted lenses.
See my post above. Yes, the transition back will be tough. Canon just doesn't have a full range of lenses in RF mount yet. I'm not giving up my 135GM and 200-600 until Canon gets around to making those specialty lenses.
What on earth do I need 8k for? Not to mention the fortune needed for storage. If I need video quality that good, I would be picking up an actual cinema camera. I’m always happy to see companies push the envelope and the specs are impressive but still a very niche Market.
Exactly. I don't have 8K TV and not planing to buy one till there is a content I can get. Right now even 4K content is very limited. I have A7RIV and $20K worth of native lenses. It would be bordering insanity for me to even think about buying this new Canon.
This is dumb. Kind of like saying I can't buy a car because the local speed limit is 25mph and these damn cars all have top speeds of 130mph. Insanity? On your part, perhaps.
Poor analogy. An apt one would be like saying I have a customized transport truck/van with $20k-$30k of customizations that I can't transfer to a competitor's truck/van--which is attractive because it has more cargo space that I don't really need. Therefore, why would I sell my customized truck/van that's working well for me to start over with an uncustomized truck/van that provides me nothing that I'm actually missing?
lame excuse. there is a lot of whining from sony apologists that 8k is overkill and takes too much space etc. i am a business and if this is something that can provide content that gives me an edge over the competition it is an easy decision. i use different brands in studio and each has its strengths. same as in film days when i had 35mm and medium format.
Yes, God knows, most intelligent people know, and essentially anyone with business experience knows. That doesn't leave you in a category that most would care to be part of. As the old saying, goes, "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt". Obviously, you haven't taken that advice.
Hi Joseph, thank god Canon is not catering to your specific needs. Or did they?...... by adding a 4k and even 1080p mode specifically for your very needs?
An actual cinema camera and lens would be far more expensive so a budget way to get into 8K when even many professional cinema cameras do not do 8K is a fantastic capability to have in your back pocket. As for why you would need that, you may not as it depends on your personal circumstances. People have asked that question at every single resolution jump. Why do we need 1080 when we have 720? Why do we need 2K when we have 1080? Why do we need 4K when we have 2K? Why do we need 6K when we have 4K?
For some, they legitimately need the extra resolution because they are delivering higher res files. For others, it's room to drop or apply stabilization in post without losing quality in the final product. For others it might be an easy way to get two or three effective focal lengths from a single shot via cropping. For others it may simply be a matter of "future-proofing" their footage. Just because you only deliver in 1080 doesn't mean that taking a video in 8K is useless. Of course, the choice to take 8K video comes hand in hand with greater requirements of your PC in order to edit that footage so that's something to be mindful of.
Indeed. This features war is really what is killing the fun in photography. Enough! Have more fun creating different types of cameras which will suit different ergonomics and preferences. To me that’s one key thing Fuji recognises and has done well. I mean what is after 8K? 16, 32? To see a pimple an a bess bum so that I may have to retouch that too? 4K TV’s make all movies look like cheap Korean sitcoms already. Everything feels artificial. What’s the point?
Just get an S20 Ultra, it’s just as good 😂
I won't switch back to Canon. Sony still has some parts that they really need to improve on, such as the grip and the menus. They can easily surpass canon again with a new sony alpha release. So it could just as well be that everyone will be blown away by the upcoming Sony a7s III, just like with the first a7s camera.