Opinion on R5 Value

1stKnight wrote in post #19204451
.
I mean, if you need a truck to tow a heavy load, you don't go and buy a Mini surely?
.

.
To use your analogy .....

The difference is that Canon had hundreds of thousands of long-time, loyal customers who had used Canon equipment for years to do their heavy-load hauling, and then, suddenly, the only current tech that Canon was offering to those customers was the Mini.

If you're a truck manufacturer, and have a customer base that has depended on your heavy haulers for decades, and your competition comes out with newer, better, cutting edge heavy haulers, and you keep making the same type of heavy haulers that you've made for years and years, and don't put the new technology into them ..... then when you finally do put new technology into a vehicle, but you only put it into your mini, you are going to exasperate a good portion of your loyal customer base, and practically force them to switch over to the competition if they want to haul heavy loads with cutting-edge heavy haulers.


.

1stKnight wrote in post #19204451
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.

No need to be apologetic for Canon... I followed every nuance of the R release including how Canon marketed it and every interview. I know specifically what it was marketed for and know where it fell short. I also know every line of Canon ILC lineup as I have owned the M series to the 1d series, and know what can do what.

I never insulted the R or you, it fits you it seems as it's a good camera as I stated, but please don't try to downplay my findings and act like I have no idea what Canon gear should do what, or that I don't know how to buy my equipment. I am glad you like it, but it doesn't need defending.

We can discuss the drop in value on the R5 in a couple years, to see how close we were in this thread.

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.

Canon had succumbed to market pressure. Folks drank the Sony Kool-aid about mirrorless, even though Olympus and Panasonic had mirrorless for YEARS before Sony...the only thing different about Sony was the FF size of some of their mirrorless bodies. But folks were bashing Canon for not offering mirrorless to compete against the Sony A7, so Canon had to go on on a full scale push to bring out their first mirrorless, in order to quiet the bashers and to not leave mirrorless unit sales uncontested in light of decling dSLR units...and so they came out with the R.

In the early reviews, conclusions like this were made:

" But unfortunately, we find it difficult to recommend the EOS R to the broader public besides perhaps existing Canon users looking for a second, lightweight full-frame body. Because ultimately, while the EOS R is unequivocally capable of taking beautiful photos, it too often distracted us and pulled us out of the picture-taking process instead of becoming an invisible part of the process itself, as the best cameras do."

As Jake put it so succinctly, the R was 'half baked', which to me was indicative of it being a market-defensive rush job.

And as 1stKnight put it, "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 control layout, the new controls, the feel of buttons were not well liked, but that is not too surprising where the body layout is so different from what previously existed (but that does beg "What could Canon have brought over from the M that is so popular in the home market (Japan)?". It took improvements found in the R5/R6 to iron out the shortcomings found in the initial try.

"The problem with the EOS R, really, is that it's got such a good feature set, it's appealing to people who are more advanced than the users it's actually aimed at. Professional wedding photographers, for example, want to use it for their work, because it's so compact, offers silent shooting, and so on. And it's great for that. But the EOS R is designed for the photography enthusiast, and it doesn't offer everything you'd find in a top-of-the-line professional camera.


https://www.canon-europe.com …tories/eos-r-system-faqs/


Canon themselves say quite clearly that the R is an 'enthusiast' camera.

I get that advanced and pro photographers wanted the higher end bodies first but Canon played to their larger base, the 'enthusiast' photographers like me.

Sure, they could have satisfied their loyal advanced shooters first but they didn't because basic economics. It was always obvious the higher end models would arrive for those who wanted/needed more.

Canon cannot be held accountable because some couldn't wait. Going back to the car analogy, it's like some bought a new 3-Series BMW knowing they really needed the 5-series but refused to wait for the new model - then dissed BMW for not making the 3-series match all they wanted from the 5!

Bizarre.

Anyway, I have the R5 too, now. Just because. It's nice but so is the R6, R and RP. All have their place in the line up.

All will have lost a chunk of change the second you take your first photo too. Their value is what they bring to your hobby or profession, as the case may be.

Edit to add: Research shows several reviews from 2018 where they actively state that the R and RP were - are - Enthusiast/High Level Enthusiast cameras. It was known then, no secret. Plus the specs are on the box! There is zero excuse, no matter what a 'rep' told anyone, for a Pro or Advanced Photographer buying one and then saying its spec's weren't up to snuff for what they wanted. There is literally no hiding behind telling folks that they were 'told' the camera was something else when it was announced with specific specifications. That's the point. Sure, lament that the R5/R6/R1/R7 weren't launched first but to even suggest the R is crippled or half-baked is sour grapes, just excuses for bad judgement or impatience.

As I see it, the main purpose of the EOS R was to provide a platform for the introduction of the RF lenses. That's it. The R body was a support player. The RP made the platform available at a price point with wider appeal, which helped get RF lenses into more hands. The R5 and R6 are the first real high-performing RF bodies in their own rite.

The introduction of the R line parallels, in many respects, that of the original film EOS line in the late 1980s. The first body released was the EOS 650 in 1987, a competent mid-range body but really only memorable because it was the first. They followed that with a few additional bodies having different features and prices, ranging from enthusiast (620, 630) to specialized (RT) to consumer (750, 850). This put the EOS AF technology--and EF lenses--into the hands of buyers with a broad range of budgets and interests. At the same time, magazines were publishing tests and reviews (no Youtube!), and Canon was taking feedback from the field and enhancing the technology. When the professional flagship EOS-1 was finally released in 1989, 2-1/2 years after the 650, the technology had been accepted in the marketplace, and had the performance, maturity and reliability to appeal to professionals.

I'm not a professional photographer, but if my livelihood depended on my camera, I would want to be certain that a new technology was mature and could really benefit me before I took the risk and expense of jumping to it.

Hindsight is certainly 20/20. When Canon first announced the R and provided a number of their reps to show how well it performs (bird photographers, sports photographers, etc), along with boasting how it has the world's fastest AF speed, what they were selling isn't what many of us found out to be true later. Mr Kiyota from Canon labeled the EOS R as a middle level camera (which is exactly what the 5D4 is), but they don't perform identically.

It wasn't until later when people started to find the deficiencies in their claims that they issued new firmware to fix some issues, and also did more interviews to say how they wanted more from the R, but had to get it to market to introduce the RF lenses.

Of course many here have a different look on the R that is in contrast to how it was released, we have now had 2+ years with it to find out the real truth behind the R.

The R5 came out of the gate swinging and hit on just about all cylinders minus the 8K debacle with overheating and lack of ability to record very long clips. They fixed some of that with a firmware update too, making it better. It will indeed hold its value much better. Regarding all the comments about pros, none of this has anything to do with the level of compensation one makes with gear, it is about marketing vs real world results. What was sold at launch and what many received didn't quite align, and the value dropped as a result, before the R5/R6 even came out.

The R5 will keep its value well I feel, even with an R1 or R7 coming out.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19204972
Hindsight is certainly 20/20. When Canon first announced the R and provided a number of their reps to show how well it performs (bird photographers, sports photographers, etc), along with boasting how it has the world's fastest AF speed, what they were selling isn't what many of us found out to be true later. Mr Kiyota from Canon labeled the EOS R as a middle level camera (which is exactly what the 5D4 is), but they don't perform identically.

It wasn't until later when people started to find the deficiencies in their claims that they issued new firmware to fix some issues, and also did more interviews to say how they wanted more from the R, but had to get it to market to introduce the RF lenses.

Of course many here have a different look on the R that is in contrast to how it was released, we have now had 2+ years with it to find out the real truth behind the R.

The R5 came out of the gate swinging and hit on just about all cylinders minus the 8K debacle with overheating and lack of ability to record very long clips. They fixed some of that with a firmware update too, making it better. It will indeed hold its value much better. Regarding all the comments about pros, none of this has anything to do with the level of compensation one makes with gear, it is about marketing vs real world results. What was sold at launch and what many received didn't quite align, and the value dropped as a result, before the R5/R6 even came out.

The R5 will keep its value well I feel, even with an R1 or R7 coming out.

True enough, probably more than a little bit of hindsight.

No matter what the corporate "strategy" was, the job of the marketing people is to make us all believe it's the greatest thing ever and we can't live without it.

So a company introduced a product using a new technology, and then over 2 years later they came out with an improved version. Wow! That's never happened before.