Sounds like a 31.5mm f/1.1 would do the same job if you lean forward or back at the waist, and it would be a lot lighter than a zoom.
Upvote
0
Canon: No Plans for High Resolution R1
- Thread starter Richard CN
- Start date
While I have 3 zooms, I am a prime snob at heart
Of course I fully support the notion that Canon should satisfy your desire... AFTER they'll be done with mine
Upvote
0
So you think the R5 is built to flagship levels? Better tell Canon. They disagree with you.
Upvote
0
It’s a pro level camera. It’s not their flagship. That’s the R1. I’m not sure what you want. Do you just want them to call it their flagship and you’ll be happy? It’s weather sealed, built like a tank, has the majority of pro level features the R1 has. It’s their flagship high MP camera in all but name.
It’s lacking a few things the 2k+ more expensive flagship has. If you want those, get that. If you want all that the r1 is but with higher MP, then you’re out of luck. I honestly don’t know what else to say other than switch brands to get something more suited.
Upvote
0
OK, pedanticly rephrasing, are you saying the R1 and R5 are built to the same level?
Upvote
0
What does it matter what I think? I don’t care.
For the record, and because you incessantly turn everything into another question: I have an R1 and I love it. It’s a great camera. By a long way the best I have ever owned. By a long way the most expensive I have ever owned also. Until then I used, professionally, dual 5dii’s, then dual 5diii’s, then dual 5div’s. Every one a great and durable camera that enables me to earn my living from shooting with them. Never once have any of those cameras failed either durability wise, or technically wise.
Now I use the R1 with a 5div. That 5div has been the same camera I have been using since I bought it, nearly TEN years ago.
Yes. They’re certainly extremely durable and yes, they’re built to the same standard in my experience (or as close as feasible for the cost difference). No, they’re not flagship cameras.
Now you. Have you professionally ever shot, day in day out, with any 5 or 1 series? Have you ever had any of them fail on you?
Now, you don’t have to be a professional, I’m not being a snob, but that’s a sure fire way of understanding just what a camera can go through, rather than whatever it is that you’re doing.
Upvote
0
I feel like you're wasting your breath (or typing fingers
). You'll just get back another rehash of The Flagship Argument.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
R5 (and R6) not built to the same level as the old prosumer DSLRs IMO, definitely don't have the same tank-like feeling those cameras or the R1/R3 have.
Is it durable enough anyway? Probably. And I even prefer the smaller size. My bigger complaint is the flagship vs non-flagship distinction leading to segmentation of features that would be useful to 5-series shooters (dual CFe cards, larger viewfinder, smart controllers, larger buffer to name a few).
Upvote
0
But the 5 series never had matching fastest card slots either. And there is a ton of trickle down. The R6 II getting the R3 autofocus is huge and nobody made a huge deal of it. It's a game changer. Shooting on my R5 I have to use AF-ON to trigger Eye AF, and with the new AF it just does it, all in the shutter button.
And I trust my R5 just as much as my 5D IV. Yes, they feel different but thats just a different camera. The 5D IV feels like a tank because it is. It's huge. Plus, I've had less failures on my R5 than my 5D. Just luck really.
Upvote
0
I also agree that the feel/weight of the R5 is less rugged than the 7D/5Diii/iv but in practice it hasn't been an issue. Equating weight to resilience isn't causation.
I recall the justification of not having a flippy screen due to how flimsy it is and prone to damage but that also hasn't been an issue and it now in all cameras. The simple improvement of folding the screen in vs needing a screen protector is a obvious advantage but the flexibility for tripod portrait orientation for landscape is invaluable.
Upvote
0
I think this is simply because of the difference in weight. The 5D is much bigger and heavier, hence a feeling of being more solid / rugged.
Upvote
0
^^This.
After using a 1D X for almost a decade, when I pulled the R3 out of the box my first thought was, "This thing feels like a toy!" The R3 is a really well-built camera, it's just 500 g / 1.1 lb lighter than the 1D X and noticeably smaller. The R1 is only 100 g heavier than the R3.
The weight difference between the 5DIV and R5II is much less pronounced, only ~200 g.
Upvote
0
This may well not be market segmentation but the problems of heat management in a smaller body and battery life. Permanent vertical grip bodies have their size and weight downsides but also their battery and thermal mass advantages.
Upvote
0
SD is relatively ubiquitous. CFe, not so much. It was certainly convenient for me to be able to put the SD card from my R3 directly into the slot on my MacBook Pro. I suspect customer desire for a more convenient card format may be a meaningful driver here, in addition to the heat management concern mentioned by @MikeGalos.
Upvote
0
Maybe. But its unrealistic expectation at this point. I mean the R3 doesn't even have matching slots.
Once again online forums are such a minority of buyers. I bet there's plenty of buyers who would back off of buying a camera based on expensive storage. Now CFEx has come down a ton in pricing, so maybe you'll get it, but I doubt it. There's a reason the battery shape has never changed, etc. People love being able to use legacy gear they've collected over decades.
Upvote
0
A downside for you, maybe. Personally, I find the integrated grip far more comfortable to hold and the weight a much better counterbalance to the heavier lenses I tend to use.
From personal experience, I can shoot for a day with a lens like the EF 70-200/2.8 or RF 24-105/2.8 in my hand most of the time, and using a 1-series or R3 body my hand doesn’t hurt at the end of the day like it does after trying that with a non-gripped body.
Ergonomics are very personal.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
