Skip to main content

Canon EOS R5 public reaction: 'Can we have a stills camera, please?'

Canon EOS R5 public reaction: 'Can we have a stills camera, please?'
(Image credit: James Artaius / Digital Camera World)

The upcoming Canon EOS R5 is the camera that has been universally praised by the press and pundits alike, but what about the public? What about the photographers at large who are actually supposed to buy the new product?

It appears that consumers aren't nearly so enamored by news emerging of Canon's next full-frame mirrorless camera. Because, in spite of the Canon EOS R5's "cinema industry-standard" video specs, what photographers really want is a new camera for photography

We turned to our social media channels to gauge the response from paying customers, and the response was overwhelmingly similar.

"When are they going to release a camera just for photographers," pined Alan Minsell, on Digital Camera World's Facebook page. "One that doesn't have video, and a price to reflect that. I am sure they would sell a huge amount. We don't all want 4 or 8k video."

"Maybe one day they will build a camera just for still photography, like they used to be," concurred Danny Laureys on the PhotoPlus magazine Facebook page. "Currently I shoot with a Canon 5D4, why should I pay for all video extras when I only shoot stills. Just being practical."

"Yes agree 100%," replied Mark Myburgh. "All this video crap. If you want to shoot video- go buy a video camera. Well said Sir."

This raised an interesting point; Canon has gone to great lengths to explain that the Canon EOS R5 is a production-standard camera, and a body that can work in sync with the new Canon EOS C300 Mark III. But when the C300 III costs $10,000, people who want to shoot video will opt for a cheaper hybrid camera instead. 

The Canon EOS R5 has been overwhelmingly marketed to video shooters – but what about photographers? (Image credit: Canon)

"While most of people won't buy video camera for video (I don't know why), they won't [make a stills-focused camera]," asserted Balázs Papp. And indeed, every new camera on the market today possesses video features for this exact reason.

"Can you give me one camera in the last 10 years that don t do video from the major companies?(canon nikon sony panasonic...)" asked Saad Alami.

"Nikon Df," responded Brett Guy, referring to Nikon's pure photography camera from 2013 that eschewed video functionality as a point of principle. "It was a flop."

Some photographers did recognize the many obvious benefits of the R5, beyond just the headline video features – though even these were still somewhat backhanded. 

"IBIS, eye auto focus, focus points everywhere, and an incredible line up of new lenses," said Tim Woodier. "But I agree in some ways, Also use a 5dmk4 and I couldn't care less about video. It is worth noting that 8K raw essentially means 30fps silent 40MP stills shooting. Not that I have any desire to work in that way in reality."

Perhaps the most pertinent question, even if it was a facetious one, was asked by Steve Bastiman on the Photography Week Facebook: "Any 8K users out there?" 

The answer, it seems, is that there are very few 8K shooters out there – and, at least from those who responded, even fewer who actually want this 8K camera. So if the Canon EOS R5 doesn't have a sky-high 70MP sensor to excite stills shooters, this camera may not be the success that the hype suggests.

Read more: 

Canon EOS R5: 5 things we know, 5 things we don't
The 10 highest-resolution cameras you can buy today: ultimate pro cameras
The best camera for filmmaking in 2020 for photographers, vloggers, pros

  • Gam3r01
    Its always interesting to see how people react to a product not marketed at them. Of course photographers wouldnt be amazed by video, thats not their field.
    I understand the desire for a "stills camera" but why bother creating a niche market anyhow.
    From the articles; "If you want to shoot video- go buy a video camera ", well since this camera is heavily geared toward video, would that not then make this a video camera that also has great stills capability?
    Or how the general consensus is negative when a modern camera has less than stellar video capabilities? EOS RP for example, is generally reviewed poorly for video performance, and agreed it should not be considered an option for primarily video use.

    It would be interesting to see the "photographers" take vs the "videographers" take.
    Reply
  • johnmcl7
    It's frustrating to see all these years this pointless argument against video is still going on. I could understand the problem if the stills performance of the camera was compromised for the video function like the Sony A7S series (which I understand is intended for video so that's not a complaint) but that's not the case here and the core of the complaint seems to be people feel they are paying extra for a video function they don't want. Which is unlikely to be the case as I expect Canon and others can add these features for comparatively little given they've developed the technology already and it can be mostly added to a mirror less camera without much additional physical cost.

    On the other hand there is a cost to stripping out video features because you're going to reduce the number of possible buyers when up against rivals who have similar stills performance but better video.

    If you want video buy a video camera is another very old argument I remember seeing all the time way back when I bought my Panasonic GH1. As primarily a photographer I'd dipped my toe in the world of video cameras a few times and never got on that well but the GH1 to me was superb, it was a familiar design I could use for stills as normal yet also take great video without another device. For similar reasons I now use an A7SII primarily for video as I like the design and handling plus I can share the lenses with the A9 I use primarily for stills. Although the S is low resolution I still find it takes decent stills when I need to and even then I don't see video on the A9 as a negative, it's an absolutely incredible stills camera that the video doesn't affect in any way plus I have the bonus if I do ever need video such as when I don't have the S with me it's still very capable.
    Reply
  • jdmcdonnell
    This article is not looking forward.

    Almost ALL small form factor digital cameras out there have mostly been designed with photographers in mind, while the video codecs are pathetic. What I (and many of my co-workers) have wanted is a serious mixed media camera. That is my job and we need tools to be light. Preconceptions around video cameras have moved on from 50 pound cameras mounted to a 30 pound lens on a Fischer dolly. That isn't where we are anymore.

    What has been sorely lacking is something that can shoot RAW photo and RAW video in 12 + bit. I know MANY professionals who will consider buying this camera, if that is really the benchmarks it brings. We need cameras with better color for photo AND video.

    There are a zillion other small form factor cameras out there designed specifically for photo. It's been years since I invested in a Canon, but if Canon drops 8K RAW video in this with dual pixel focusing... well, they have my attention. Even if their lenses are still a bit bland.
    Reply
  • MeS
    But let's address the underlying question. What does the video functionality of a camera like this add to the cost?
    Reply
  • Gam3r01
    MeS said:
    But let's address the underlying question. What does the video functionality of a camera like this add to the cost?
    Given how integrated these sorts of designs are these days, it would probably cost more to design a platform *without* these functions.
    Reply
  • Cosmopotter
    This article and opinion is a bit premature and a bit unnecessary.

    The already announced photography features are excellent. 12 fps at 45MP (20FPSsilent) with new eye tracking and a combined 5-7 stops of stabilization and great RF glass are all fantastic. All that is missing is noise and contrast information.

    I’m buying one ASAP.
    Reply
  • Astronomer
    What does video capabilities add to the cost of the camera? Just the cost to license the video codecs. The camera has a fast processor to allow for fast auto focus, eye auto focus, focus in low light,high-speed burst mode, fast buffer writes etc. This also allows for the gee-whiz video. THIS WILL BE A VERY CAPABLE STILLS CAMERA! So what if, at the moment, they're trying to catch the attention of videographers? That takes away exactly nothing (zero, zilch, nada) from the stills capability of this exciting camera. This whole click-baity pearl-clutching nonsense is a tempest in a teapot. Focus on your usage and see if it ticks your checkboxes. I'm a stills photographer with no interest in video at the moment and I'm excited enough by it to get one in my hands as soon as I can.
    Reply
  • steveb
    Gam3r01 said:
    Given how integrated these sorts of designs are these days, it would probably cost more to design a platform *without* these functions.
    Though it may not add too much in terms of production cost, there will always be a additional mark up just because of the specs versus those of competitors - however, one also needs to consider the total cost of ownership - can someone's current computer cpu, gpu, disk drives, RAM, monitors, etc meet the challenges that will be created by 8K, the file sizes etc.
    Reply
  • BrettSherm
    Heretofore, Canon's SLR's have been s&^ty for video. If you're a photographer complaining about the R5, just buy one of those cameras. Totally nonsensical.
    Reply
  • BrettSherm
    steveb said:
    however, one also needs to consider the total cost of ownership - can someone's current computer cpu, gpu, disk drives, RAM, monitors, etc meet the challenges that will be created by 8K, the file sizes etc.

    I don't understand your point. If you're a photographer you don't need anything more than a 6 year old computer. So for the photographers complaining, the system won't add any additional costs for them.

    Most professional video people I know and myself aren't going to use 8K. But we do want a 4K 60P capable camera without crop factor and with a decent codec. This is the ONLY small body Canon camera to do so. For large bodies for less than $30,000 there are only two right now, the C500 Mk II and 1DX Mark III.
    Reply