Opinion on R5 Value

drsilver wrote in post #19200952
As to resale value, keep in mind that camera bodies are primarily computers, and since technology advances quickly, used computers lose their value quickly. With first-gen bodies it happens even faster. (And the R seems more beta than first gen so add that into the depreciation mix too.)

I think the R5 will hold its value better than the R. But once the R5 mark II comes out, the R5 classic will lose about 40% of its original price. And when the MkIII gets released, they'll be giving away the first-gen versions. Look at used prices for first- and second-gen 5D bodies to see what I'm talking about.

Glass, on the other hand, holds its value very well although with lenses getting more computerized that might change too.

For me, photography is just a hobby and I generally outfit my hobbies with used gear. I probably won't go mirrorless until I start seeing Mark II versions hit the used markets. I'm just now looking for a used 5D MkIV. Very reasonably priced these days.

It is but it took 4 plus years. The mirrorless market also did a number on its value. I sold mine two weeks ago for a lot less than I wanted but had to in order to offset the cost of the R6.

gossamer88 wrote in post #19200961
It is but it took 4 plus years. The mirrorless market also did a number on its value. I sold mine two weeks ago for a lot less than I wanted but had to in order to offset the cost of the R6.

This is a perfect synopsis of how cameras age in the market. Depending on how you count the R/RP, the 5DmkIV is now 1-2 generations old. Right in my wheelhouse.

samueli wrote in post #19196976
Resale value on the R brings me to the value question, since the R is worth half or less of the original purchase price, and a used sale would've softened the blow a bit. I don't want to see the same thing with the R5 in 12 months. Plus I'd need a new PC rig for 45MP, and surely for 4-8k video.

The dSLR went thru a rapidly evolving technology churn back from 2002 to about 2012, and they depreciated about 30% compounded...In 2 years the camera was about HALF its prior value on the used market. A 1Dn was $8k MSRP new, and one could buy it 2 yr later for $4k, then another 2yr later for $2k, then at 8yo for $1k, because advancements in later models made the early ones drop precipitously in value. This happened no matter which model, and it seem like the 5Dn line was the only one resistant to such value drops.

Mirrorless is repeating the technology churn, I fear. The R was the start of the Canon efforts, the RP was next, and now we have R5 and R6 which are the beginnings of more mature Canon mirrorless. But still in the early stage of technology churn. And the depreciation which accompanes a fairly rapidly evolving line up. It has the advantages of all the learning and churn of its dSLR brother particularly in increased pixel count while dropping noise at high ISO, but there is still mirrorless AF and control evolution going on.

I don't think you should purchase any camera body from any manufacturer with an eye towards future value. Like mainstream cars, they will all depreciate; they are not fine wine. Just purchase what works for you based on your style of photography and what you think that style will be in the near future. And the older you get the more you should shorten that timeline, I have.

All of the current APS-C, FF, and MF MILCs are more than capable of taking outstanding images. Whether they accomplish that is up to the operator.

Today I'm wrought with joy and aggravation.

I bought the R5. I haven't even charged the battery, but the feel of the camera in my hand is awesome and what I expect when I buy a full frame Canon product. Whatever they where thinking with the R was ignorance, and I literally threw money away on the R because I was expecting a familiar full frame Canon Product. It was shorter and made my hand cramp, it was missing familiar controls and it was uncomfortable to use. The R5 feels like home, like my 5DIII.

I'm crafting a scathing letter for Canon about this, with demand to meet with a Canon rep. I didn't realize how bad they dropped the ball on the R until I held the R5. They need to make right the gaff that was the R for customers who expect Canon products to be Canon products. I shoot Canon because they make a familiar product, that I know is going to meet expectations based on their product history. To go off and choke their main product and rip people off, when they knew they had an ergonomic design the oven, is nothing less than thievery on a grand scale.

The R5 is nice hand fit.

Glad you do like the R5. Your post above reads like glass half empty sort

Yeah, I bought the R at a reduced cost, used it for a few months, and sold it. It just wasn't quite the polished product I had hoped. The R5 and R6 have truly moved the bar for Canon FF mirrorless.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19203783
Glad you do like the R5. Your post above reads like glass half empty sort

Probably. I think what I said in my post needs to be said though. In my current day job, I pick vendors on strengths to fit a current need based on previous experience, or when no experience, then reference. Same thing with Canon. Previous experience tells me the cameras always fit good and feel good in my hand. Obviously I can't jump to a different line and expect that, but the product that is taking the top spot in the FF line-up, shouldn't be devoid of expected ergonomics or functionality. Then after collecting money on an inferior product, show up with more models with the control and ergonomics replaced.

Tell me I'm wrong.

I do like the R5; thank you for being glad.

samueli wrote in post #19203805
Probably. I think what I said in my post needs to be said though. In my current day job, I pick vendors on strengths to fit a current need based on previous experience, or when no experience, then reference. Same thing with Canon. Previous experience tells me the cameras always fit good and feel good in my hand. Obviously I can't jump to a different line and expect that, but the product that is taking the top spot in the FF line-up, shouldn't be devoid of expected ergonomics or functionality. Then after collecting money on an inferior product, show up with more models with the control and ergonomics replaced.

Tell me I'm wrong.

I do like the R5; thank you for being glad.

No no, I agree with you. The R was half baked. It did not make me angry, but I did not keep it long either.

I still have my R. I came from a 5D3, and honestly do not see the R as being as bad as some folks here are making it out to be. However, I did buy it at a substantial discount, along with an RF 24-105L and EF - RF adapter. It has worked well enough for me that I felt comfortable selling the 5D3. Even after I eventually get an R5, R6 or whatever comes next, I will still probably hang on to the R to use as a 2nd body -- I also sold my 7D2 that had served that purpose, so my only other body right now is a M50.

The controls are different than my previous Canon dSLRs (I also used to own a 7D and 40D), but it's nothing I cannot work with. The image quality is better than my 5D3, and that's what is most important for me.

Scott M wrote in post #19203855
I still have my R. I came from a 5D3, and honestly do not see the R as being as bad as some folks here are making it out to be. However, I did buy it at a substantial discount, along with an RF 24-105L and EF - RF adapter. It has worked well enough for me that I felt comfortable selling the 5D3. Even after I eventually get an R5, R6 or whatever comes next, I will still probably hang on to the R to use as a 2nd body -- I also sold my 7D2 that had served that purpose, so my only other body right now is a M50.

The controls are different than my previous Canon dSLRs (I also used to own a 7D and 40D), but it's nothing I cannot work with. The image quality is better than my 5D3, and that's what is most important for me.

Depends on what you shoot... also Eye af, even after the firmware update to make it look like it was more responsive and fewer stutters on the blackout, it seemed mediocre at best. Finally, for those that shoot action, the R AF just isn't up to the task.

Portraiture, some aspects of weddings, landscapes, street scenes, etc would all be perfectly fine on the R.

I really liked the R.

It wasn't half-baked at all to my mind, it was - is - alongside the RP an excellent intro to consumer mirrorless for Canon.

Surely it was obvious, especially to Pro's, that the RP and R were never meant to be flagship or Pro products? I recall posting similar when I got mine at launch and people were moaning about the lack of certain Pro features they had expected.

The only debate - in my opinion - is Canon's release order strategy. Should they have kicked off with the still pending R1, then R5, R6, R, RP?
Or have they got it right by starting with the Enthusiast models then lead up to Pro bodies while releasing RF lenses? I side with the strategy they have taken. It means Pro's have access to the matching RF lenses by the time the flagship is released.

Naturally, by making a great adaptor, all EF glass was, is, available too, making the early bodies viable.

The subject of depreciation is also obvious. We know tech devalues quickly. We should buy according to need vs want vs affordability which is a subjective calculation that will yield different answers depending who you ask due to differing circumstances.

I'm no Pro. My first DSLR was a 20D I bought for my Honeymoon trip to the Masai Mara. It got me into photography as a hobby but for me, it is a very casual hobby. I might use my camera once or twice a month. I've never taken any lessons, never really got into it very deeply. Pro's 20D shots are still better than I achieve with my R or R5 - which means I have way more camera tech than I know what to do with, literally! So why do I upgrade? Simply because I can, want to, like that the camera does more of the heavy-lifting so all I have to do is compose. Still, it means in theory, the R or R5 is all the camera I really need for ever...they could quite realistically be great value to someone who is happy with that simple fact and doesn't upgrade frequently.

The R therefore is a marvel. It is a great camera for Enthusiasts like me. It does not deserve the bad rep some give it because they were impatient for the Pro, high-end Enthusiast models were released.

I also remember Canon saying it was meant as a secondary body to compliment your pro body.

1stKnight wrote in post #19204438
I really liked the R.

It wasn't half-baked at all to my mind, it was - is - alongside the RP an excellent intro to consumer mirrorless for Canon.

Surely it was obvious, especially to Pro's, that the RP and R were never meant to be flagship or Pro products? I recall posting similar when I got mine at launch and people were moaning about the lack of certain Pro features they had expected.

Being able to follow action isn't a pro feature, it is an expected feature of any of the mid level cameras, and even some of the consumer based products. The 7D2 isn't a pro level body either but does much better. Also when the R was first introduced, the eye AF and frame stutter was terrible. After much teeth gnashing on the boards, Canon finally came out with a firmware that fixed most of that to the point it was pretty good. So yes, it was rushed to market, then Canon had to fix some things along the way, and in the end, it was a decent first round FF mirrorless offering, but still not close to the competition at that point and certainly not a replacement of the 5D4, despite it having what seemed to be the same sensor.

The RP is the mirrorless equiv of the 6D2, which is indeed Canon's entry level FF line. What it does or doesn't do is to be expected. The R, on the other hand, was marketed as the mirrorless replacement to the 5D4. It wasn't in end to end performance. It doesn't mean it doesn't meet the needs of many owners. It doesn't mean the R was a bad camera. It just means that Canon didn't hit the mark they had hoped due to timelines dictating early release. Canon even stated they had more planned but had to pull back in order to get it to market sooner.

Did Canon force anyone to buy the R? Surely serious photographers understand specifications and can make reasonable assessments based upon those details as to whether a camera will meet their shooting preferences before they buy? This avoids people buying something and then moaning that the specs weren't enough. Heck, I can tell by a quick glance at a box if the contents are likely to help or hinder me so those who delve more deeply into the tech must understand even better.

I mean, if you need a truck to tow a heavy load, you don't go and buy a Mini surely?

So the R isn't great at action. Do all photographers need that? Why do some buy the 7D2 over the 6D2? Action, wildlife maybe? I really don't see the problem with the R not being the perfect camera for all photographers given its obvious position based upon price point.

Canon sell more cameras to people like me...it looks to me that they aimed the RP and R at us...and they are great for us, their bread and butter consumers.

Just because some wanted the R5 earlier doesn't make the R bad. If the R5 came first, the R would be seen as a lovely consumer camera for those who don't need R5 specs.