# Counting down my five favorite Canon digital cameras ever. Coming in at #1…..



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 16, 2020)

> ….. The Canon EOS-1D X Series
> Wow, what a cop-out!
> No, not really, I didn’t think having three EOS-1D X cameras in the top 5 was all that interesting or proper. Each camera has been just like the one before it as far as ergonomics and usability, but they continue to evolve in all the areas that are important. Every EOS-1D X camera is a viable tool today, you won’t be upset buying an original EOS-1D X today.
> I have owned and used and abused the EOS-1D X and EOS-1D X Mark II, I also own the EOS-1D X Mark III, however, the current global landscape has prevented me from traveling with the new king of the DSLR.
> ...


*

Continue reading...*


----------



## ildyria (Apr 16, 2020)

Am I the only one triggered by the presence of *APS-C* in the sensor description of each 1D X ?**

The original post has been edited and corrected.


----------



## raman_nkp (Apr 16, 2020)

My Canon journey of 27 years...


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 16, 2020)

What happened to APS-H?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 16, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> What happened to APS-H?



As much as I liked the EOS-1D Mark IV, it was just a sensor size that didn't make sense once the EOS-1D lineup was amalgamated. I believe it existed for technical reasons to allow for higher frame rates because they couldn't clear a full-frame sensor fast enough for 10fps back in 2009 and before.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> As much as I liked the EOS-1D Mark IV, it was just a sensor size that didn't make sense once the EOS-1D lineup was amalgamated. I believe it existed for technical reasons to allow for higher frame rates because they couldn't clear a full-frame sensor fast enough for 10fps back in 2009 and before.


I think it was entirely a marketing decision for both the 1D3 and 1D4. If there was a technical reason, it had to do with the moving a FF mirror that fast. The 1D3 was introduced over a year after the 5D and the 5D had about the same pixel size as the 1D2/1D2N. I hoped that the Canon would scale up the 1D2N sensor to FF or put a speeded-up 5D sensor into the 1D3. No such luck. The Nikon D3 and D300 were introduced only 6 months after the 1D3 and the Nikon owners posting at DPReview celebrated enthusiastically when it happened. Nikon was no longer trying to compete with the 1D series with their D2H and D2X architectures.

In the 11 years that Canon used APS-H sensors, they never made a lens specifically for that size sensor. The closest they came was to replace the 17-35 f/2.8 L with a 16-35 f/2.8 L when the original 1D was introduced.


----------



## degos (Apr 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> As much as I liked the EOS-1D Mark IV, it was just a sensor size that didn't make sense once the EOS-1D lineup was amalgamated. I believe it existed for technical reasons to allow for higher frame rates because they couldn't clear a full-frame sensor fast enough for 10fps back in 2009 and before.



Whereas the 1DX still hasn't achieved the pixel density of the 1D4, after three iterations. In fact it's marginally better than the 1D3. So perhaps the APS-C / full-frame split was actually a good idea back in the day ..


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 16, 2020)

degos said:


> Whereas the 1DX still hasn't achieved the pixel density of the 1D4, after three iterations. In fact it's marginally better than the 1D3. So perhaps the APS-C / full-frame split was actually a good idea back in the day ..


APS-H, not APS-C. The APS-H sensor has a 1.3X crop. Canon APS-C is 1.6X and Nikon APS-C is 1.5X. When Canon introduced the original 1D in 2001, they bragged about how their APS-H sensor was larger than Nikon's APS-C sensors used on the D1 and D2 series.


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 16, 2020)

Given the (at this point) apparent/perceived size of the yet untouched by mortal (public) hands R5, Canon looks to be maintaining similar size and feel with ergonomics for their most popular pro cameras. I would bet money an 1RX is going to look almost identical in size and shape to a 1DX. The prospect of such a camera hitting in 2021 is what kept me from throwing down on the DX3. I think the video upgrades and AF upgrades from the DX2 are VERY nice, but I can wait another year before making my next 1DX upgrade to see what the R version looks like. I'm thinking 90%+ 1DX body with the sensor pushed forward LOL


----------



## slclick (Apr 16, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> What happened to APS-H?


Nothing at all, there is Sigma and a small militia of 17 people here who are keeping the flame alive.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 16, 2020)

I would have to put the 7D series in the top five. Sad to see it killed off, if it has been killed off. 7DII is still a great camera and fills a niche that isn't being met now.


----------



## magarity (Apr 16, 2020)

Dang, I lose. Here I had bet #1 was going to be the 4000D.


----------



## bbasiaga (Apr 16, 2020)

magarity said:


> Dang, I lose. Here I had bet #1 was going to be the 4000D.


Don't worry. I'm sure you heard the collective sigh of the internet experts who were sure the #1 Canon camera should have been a Sony body.  

Brian


----------



## slclick (Apr 16, 2020)

I'd love to see a film body version of this as well.


----------



## mangobutter (Apr 16, 2020)

After owning the original 5D in the year 2005 and owning almost everything else since, I'd have to say my favorites have been:

#1) EOS R - Great DSLR 5D4 sensor in a small(er) package. Great to edit.
#2) EOS RP - Full Frame power in an even smaller (and cheap) package. Not so great to edit, but not bad either. This would easily be #1 in my book if it had a better sensor. 
#3) M6 - Great when paired with superb primes like the 22-2. Great editability of files. Cheap on used market.
#4) 6D - No fuss, superb low light performance. Took the FF market by storm. 
#5) 5D Classic. Or back in 2005, just the 5D  If you owned this in 2005/2006/2007, you were an absolute powerhouse. People revered you as a rockstar. This type of camera was a earth crusher back in its day. Superb quality and people instantly recognized your pics as being 5D photos.

I've owned or extensively used everything else in between. The 30/40Ds, the Rebel XS/XSIs, SLXs, the 1 Series, etc. These 5 are my favorites. We're living in a day and age now where you don't need size to be good. And therefore, to me, larger cameras are unnecessary and are hard to make the list in this moment and time unless they possess unique or special qualities or history. I owned the R, now own the RP. I love the size of the RP, notably smaller than the R. Yes the absolute IQ isn't there but really its not needed and isn't realized in 99% of photos. I'd much rather have the small size. If the RP replacement can be a tad smaller and have a better sensor, then I'd be ALL IN.

Also the new FV modes make the R and RP just BRILLIANT. Gone are the days where I cycle back and forth between AV and TV.


----------



## masterpix (Apr 16, 2020)

The only issue I have with this choice, well it is about 6500 little green issues...


----------



## Fischer (Apr 16, 2020)

We all have our own fav's. But its certainly not aligned with the cameras where Canon set new standards. 5D first affordable FF makes sense. 5DII was the break through video capable FF camera and will be on many people's list already for that reason. It was also the most anticipated Canon camera ever - digital or otherwise. And the 5DS/R set the standard for quality high resolution FF sensors for years, while everyone was expecting Sony to respond within months.


----------



## jhpeterson (Apr 16, 2020)

I say you can't go wrong with a 1DX, whichever generation. Sure, they're on the expensive side, but, after a few hundred thousand frames taken in all sorts of conditions and it still delivers results as good as it did on day one, you don't have much reason to complain.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 17, 2020)

*My All-Time #1:* _PowerShot G12_.

No, seriously. 

Not that it would be the camera I'd reach for these days but because of what it did for me. I was a casual family shooter that enjoyed using my PowerShot A80. The colors that camera produced were beautiful, and Auto mode was all I knew.

Then I decided to upgrade to the G12. It had higher resolution, bigger articulating screen, more manual controls (never used any manual controls but the thought appealed to me). Then I shot some photos with it. The images were terrible. Highlights were routinely blown. There was noise where I hadn't noticed noise before. My Auto mode world was imploding before my eyes. I was this close > < to returning it.

"Maybe I'll try manual mode before I send it back...."

And thus began the journey that led me into photography.

Had the G12 produced the same results (to my then untrained eye) as my previous camera, I'd still be using a PowerShot, and I'd still be living obliviously in Auto mode...shooting JPEGs.

Eventually, I mastered Manual mode and was able to consistently produce excellent results with the G12. Trying out JPEG+RAW also allowed what felt like a risk-free dip of my toe in the RAW waters. RAW looked so flat. Then came Lightroom...and lots of YouTube tutorials. A whole different world opened up. Then DSLRs, L lenses, and on until the present day.

How grateful I am that Auto mode on the G12 was such a disappointment at the time.

PS: The single best feature on the G12 was the ( * ) button. Press it while in Manual mode, and it would automatically adjust the shutter speed and aperture to what it would have been if it was in Auto. The feature, now, would be pretty useless to me, but at the time, it was just the crutch I needed while "learning to walk" in Manual mode.


----------



## Billybob (Apr 17, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> Don't worry. I'm sure you heard the collective sigh of the internet experts who were sure the #1 Canon camera should have been a Sony body.
> 
> Brian


Interestingly, Sony is still one of the best cameras to use with Canon lenses.

Three of my favorite lenses for Sony a7R cameras are
Canon 24-70L II
Canon 100L IS
Canon 100-400L II

And until Sony released the 135mm GM and Sigma, the 24-70 for Sony, those would have been my three favorite lenses for Sony (okay, I'm digging on the Sony 200-600 for birding too). I have been so blown away by the IQ that I obtain with those EF lenses on A7R bodies. Breathtaking and phenomenal!

Please don't shoot the messenger!


----------



## brad-man (Apr 17, 2020)

Billybob said:


> Interestingly, Sony is still one of the best cameras to use with Canon lenses.
> 
> Three of my favorite lenses for Sony a7R cameras are
> Canon 24-70L II
> ...


I'll share a little known secret with you. Those lenses work pretty well on Canon bodies as well. Don't tell anyone. It could make Canon the industry leader...


----------



## Billybob (Apr 17, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I'll share a little known secret with you. Those lenses work pretty well on Canon bodies as well. Don't tell anyone. It could make Canon the industry leader...



I'm sure they do, but Canon bodies have lagged their lenses for years. I love Canon lenses, but haven't been happy with a Canon body since the 5DIII. Canon hasn't ever made a high-resolution camera that shoots faster than 5fps. Canon has pretty much caught up in the DR race, but the 50MP 5DR hasn't been updated in years and lags in DR. To me, outside the studio the 5DR's efficacy is extremely limited. Thus, a responsive, all-around high-resolution camera with good DR is missing from Canon's lineup. That's why the 5DIII was my last Canon FF camera. 

Because I love Canon lenses and respect their competence, I expected Canon to eventually produce a camera that addressed my needs. Accordingly, I never sold my best Canon lenses. I have high hopes that the R5 is the Canon camera I've been waiting for. Now, the question is whether I'll be able to afford it.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 17, 2020)

Famateur said:


> *My All-Time #1:* _PowerShot G12_.
> 
> No, seriously.


About 10 years ago, a website called Luminous Landscape ran a test between a Canon G9 and a medium format camera with, I think, a state-of-the-art Phase One back. They took photos of the same scenes with both cameras, made prints from them and presented the prints to three experienced and passionate landscape photographers, with the question: which prints were taken with which camera? The only way the judges could tell was because of differences in depth of field. The images with the G9 were that good.

Their conclusion was that the bottom end of the photographic equipment spectrum had gotten extremely good. About a week later I bought a G9 and it was my pocket camera for the next five years of so. It took gorgeous pictures.

Correction: It was a G10, not a G9.


----------



## RJ_4000 (Apr 17, 2020)

Hi
Thanks for sharing your favorites.
I owned successively, to date,
1. 10D
2. 1D Mark II
3. 1DX
4. 5DSR
5. M50
6. EOS R

And I'm still using the last 4.
The 1DX remains a favorite. What a camera !
The 5DSR is also fantastic, especially when combined with the 11-24. VERY versatile too... ;-)

Looking forward for a high-megapixels EOS R5s ...

This is digital only.
As for film camera, I started with FTb, New F1, T90,,... and EOS 3.
The New F1 remains special in my mind, just like the 1DII and 1DX.


----------



## RJ_4000 (Apr 17, 2020)

Billybob said:


> To me, outside the studio the 5DR's efficacy is extremely limited.


Then you dont' know what you miss.
This is one of the most versatile camera I know of.

Now due for an upgrade, for sure. But still an excellent camera.


----------



## Billybob (Apr 17, 2020)

RJ_4000 said:


> Then you dont' know what you miss.
> This is one of the most versatile camera I know of.
> 
> Now due for an upgrade, for sure. But still an excellent camera.



For my kind of shooting--not much. I shoot action, wildlife, and lowlight. I beat up my images and will underexpose--rather than raise the ISO--just to get a high enough shutter rate. For my style of shooting, the low max continuous rate by itself is a disqualifier. That along with the noise at high ISO and low DR makes the 5DR cameras a non-starter _for me_. The camera works for you--and many others. It just didn't work for me when there were/are alternatives that suit my shooting style better. 

Now, I don't want to rekindle an argument over sensors. The 5DIV provides more than adequate DR, but I found the resolution lacking, and the AA filter a turnoff (again, YMMV). As mentioned above, I have high hopes that the R5 addresses my concerns/disappointments with Canon cameras _AND_ recent Sony offerings (don't get me started on Sony's lack of lossless compression, noisy 60MP sensor, slow image processing, blackout-free continuous rate only with the A9,...).


----------



## stevelee (Apr 17, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> About 10 years ago, a website called Luminous Landscape ran a test between a Canon G9 and a medium format camera with, I think, a state-of-the-art Phase One back. They took photos of the same scenes with both cameras, made prints from them and presented the prints to three experienced and passionate landscape photographers, with the question: which prints were taken with which camera? The only way the judges could tell was because of differences in depth of field. The images with the G9 were that good.
> 
> Their conclusion was that the bottom end of the photographic equipment spectrum had gotten extremely good. About a week later I bought a G9 and it was my pocket camera for the next five years of so. It took gorgeous pictures.
> 
> Correction: It was a G10, not a G9.


For my travel camera, I used a couple from the S line. Then when the G7X II came out, I started using it. Last fall, before I was leaving for two+ weeks in Italy and then a 14-night Mediterranean cruise, I got the G5X II. Both of my G cameras have given great results, certainly more than adequate for posting pictures on the web and making 13" x 19" prints. The S cameras were more limited, but still made good pictures. I enjoy my DSLR when closer to home, and I have been enjoying playing around with the 24mm TS-E lens I had rented and with my macro lens and extension tubes during these times around home. But I really appreciate having a good camera that will fit in my pocket, yet still gives me much more flexibility and control than I get with my iPhone camera, when I can travel.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2020)

Within the Canon ecosystem, a list of my personal favorite cameras and a list of cameras I think had the most impact would be different. For example: I love my 5Ds, but I don't think it qualifies for "most impact" because it only advanced the state of the art in one respect (resolution on a 35mm sensor), and that only mattered to a subset of Canon photographers.

But one camera I know would be on both lists would be the original 7D.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> About 10 years ago, a website called Luminous Landscape ran a test between a Canon G9 and a medium format camera with, I think, a state-of-the-art Phase One back. They took photos of the same scenes with both cameras, made prints from them and presented the prints to three experienced and passionate landscape photographers, with the question: which prints were taken with which camera? The only way the judges could tell was because of differences in depth of field. The images with the G9 were that good.



In fairness I believe the prints were 13x19, and Michael Reichmann qualified the test by saying that at larger print sizes the MF would pull ahead. But he was famous for making people question their assumptions about the relative performance of camera systems and the impact of equipment on final prints. From the days of the 1Ds and D30 he was pointing out how good "low end" equipment could be. (Not that the 1Ds was low end, but he was comparing it to MF film where the assumption was that it could not compete.)

I never met him but I miss him. I learned a great deal from his articles and always enjoyed his work.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2020)

Also the scene had a very modest dynamic range.









Kidding - Luminous Landscape


FacebookTweet No – I’m Not Figure 1 Needles – Algonquin Park, Ontario. October, 2008 Canon G10 @ ISO 200 18mm (100mm equiv) – 1/40 sec...



luminous-landscape.com





Reichmann owned and used a large variety of formats and knew the strengths and weaknesses of each of them, he was a great fan of P&S's, particularly higher end ones, and he loved using and teaching workshops with his medium format digital. He put out some great articles back when the site was 'free', one I have linked to here more than once illustrates the difference between hyperlocal distance shooting and using tilt and swing, though I think he conflated swing and tilt in at least part of the description. The relevant bit is under "Another Example".









Nikon 24 mm f/3.5 PC-E Nikkor ED - Luminous Landscape


FacebookTweet Part of Nikon’s resurgence during the past year was the announcement in January ’08 of three new Perspective Control lenses, a 24mm f/3.5, 45mm...



luminous-landscape.com





I also owned, actually still do, a G10, which I bought in part because of Michael's outlook on equipment capabilities.


----------



## russ (Apr 18, 2020)

I miss my 1DX. Rugged, great auto-focus that seemed to read my mind and really good battery life. That said I would never travel with it, just way too large.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 18, 2020)

Ha. 1DX series. Not my league. Neither use case nor size nor price. 

My personal ranking
#1 - EOS M (original) - honestly
got it in 2014 second hand, hardly used, mint condition for only € 190 and today it is still by far my most used camera. Got more images with it (close to 100k) than with all my other Canon bodies combined. Simply because the darn thing is so small and light and has good enough IQ for me. Yes, the old Canon 18 MP sensor. 

Of course it is no suitable tool for any sort of "action" and lack of viewfinder is a huge sacrifice for me. But for my travel, city trips, countryside excursions, street, mountaineering, backcountry skiing it is always with me and it always delivers. Build quality is very good, it is one tough little beast. Amongst a few other mishaps I once lost it in kneedeep powder snow on a ski randonee tour. Trying to find it, i fumbled and slipped and scratched it with a ski edge, finally dug it out, wiped dry and it continued to work as if nothing had happened, except proudly wearing a minor battle mark. Mostly use it with a very good copy of EF-M 18-55 kit zoom, lately also 18-150 and/or 22, 11-22 - depending on situation and ideas.

Was on lookout for a "worthy upgrade" all along, but either no viewfinder (M6, M6 II) or not enough of an improvement (M3) or too big (M5). M50 was very close, but never pulled the trigger because with the viewfinder bump it will not fit into my miniature LowePro Dashpoint pouch. Now hoping for a successor with new sensor (32 MP) and further improved AF in smallest possible form factor - ideally with pop-up EVF "like a G5X II on steroids".

#2 - EOS 5D III
#3 - EOS 7D
#4 - EOS 40D [also used mainly with 17-55, as well as 10-22, 70-200/4 L, 60 Macro]
#5 - EOS 350D


----------



## Fischer (Apr 20, 2020)

Billybob said:


> That along with the noise at high ISO and low DR makes the 5DR cameras a non-starter _for me_.


5DS/R has excellent noise at high iso. Better than the 5DIV due to the pixel advantage which would save more detail. Also DR was essentially the same between the two, as soon as you passed iso 400.


----------



## Billybob (Apr 22, 2020)

Fischer said:


> 5DS/R has excellent noise at high iso. Better than the 5DIV due to the pixel advantage which would save more detail. Also DR was essentially the same between the two, as soon as you passed iso 400.



I take this to mean that you never shoot at ISO400 or below. By contrast, when I look at my LR Library, 60-70% of my shots are at ISO 400 and below, so ISO 100-400 matters to me. Moreover, I'm also not a fan of the 5D IV (read the rest of my post and my previous posts in this thread). I've been shooting the Sony A7RIII the last couple of years. DPR (DPR 5DS Review--use comparison tool) and Photonstophotos think that the Sony has better DR and low light performance than the 5DS/R. I agree. I think that 8MP less for better performance in these two areas is a worthwhile tradeoff. But that's just me.

Regardless, I didn't come here to debate the merits and demerits of old cameras. Instead, I'm excited about the forthcoming R5. If it performs up to its specs, there isn't a camera out there that touches it in video or stills photography. I don't know yet whether I can afford to switch or add it to my kit, but if it lives up to the pre-introduction hype, I may need to find a way.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 22, 2020)

Fischer said:


> No it was a just comment to your claim that 5DS/R suffered from high iso noise - it does not. And I specifically referenced my remark to this part of your post. As for noise and DR under iso 400 this is of course only relevant in marginal situations (for the majority of correctly exposed shots) - although it may be critical for some shooters.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 22, 2020)

Billybob said:


> I take this to mean that you never shoot at ISO400 or below. By contrast, when I look at my LR Library, 60-70% of my shots are at ISO 400 and below, so ISO 100-400 matters to me.



Yes, but how many of those photos have a DR which exceeds 12.5ev? The thing with DR differences is that they do not exist unless A) you're shooting a high DR scene, and B) you expose/process for that scene. And when comparing two cameras if the lesser DR camera is shot ETTR and the higher DR camera is shot normally, you C) easily squander any sensor advantage you had on the higher DR camera.

That said, the gap between these two is a couple stops so you can certainly run into situations where you need two frames on a 5DsR to match one frame on an A7r3. If you tend to run into those situations then yeah, shoot an A7r3/4 or D850. (Or 5D4 if you won't miss the MP.) I'm sure I run into those landscape situations but I would likely bracket/blend even with another body in order to maximize shadow IQ. Now if I shot high end real estate all day every day...the amount of work would push me to a 5D4, A7r, or D850.



> DPR (DPR 5DS Review--use comparison tool) and Photonstophotos think that the Sony has better DR and low light performance than the 5DS/R.



A7rIII is about 0.5ev better at ISO 12,800. Visible, but so small that you can't call the old 50mp twins bad at high ISO without also calling the A7rIII bad at high ISO. I think all three are quite good at high ISO. Personally I have no hesitation printing 30" from a well exposed ISO 3200 5Ds RAW.



> Regardless, I didn't come here to debate the merits and demerits of old cameras. Instead, I'm excited about the forthcoming R5. If it performs up to its specs, there isn't a camera out there that touches it in video or stills photography.



There are already several cameras...including the 5Ds/sR...which can 'touch it' in terms of stills photography. But for stills it will be able to slug it out with the likes of the 5Ds/sR, A7r3/4, D850, even some MF backs. And it will do so while having far and away the best video of any hybrid camera on the market.

So yeah...it will be an amazing camera. Someone who is only interested in stills though could save their money and get another model.


----------



## Billybob (Apr 23, 2020)

dtaylor said:


> There are already several cameras...including the 5Ds/sR...which can 'touch it' in terms of stills photography. But for stills it will be able to slug it out with the likes of the 5Ds/sR, A7r3/4, D850, even some MF backs. And it will do so while having far and away the best video of any hybrid camera on the market.
> 
> So yeah...it will be an amazing camera. Someone who is only interested in stills though could save their money and get another model.



I, respectifully, disagree. There are cameras that have high resolution, there are cameras that are stellar in low-light, and there are cameras that shoot 12fps mechanical (and 20fps electronic), but there is no camera that puts all of the above together in one package. Frankly, it's what disappointed me about the Sony A9II. The A9 has all the above except high resolution. I was hoping that Sony would bump the resolution up to 36MP, but clearly that is not the A9 range's focus.

If the R5's AF can keep up with those extremely fast continuous rates while delivering 45MP per frame--and, yes, I have my doubts, but I can hope--then it will be the wildlife photographer's dream camera. And no, there is no camera that can touch that. And I would be just as excited even if it didn't do video.

Thus, it depends on your photography. If you shoot studio, or studio and landscapes, or weddings, then yes the R5 may be overkill. However, wildlife photography often requires heavy cropping, shooting at daybreak/twilight and attempting to capture skittish, and erratically moving critters who may be some distance away. I'm sorry, but your 5Ds just doesn't cut it. Most use cameras like the 1DX line or D5 or A9 for their speed and low-light prowess, but those bodies just don't provide enough resoution. The R5 promises speed and resolution, I just hope that the AF can keep up.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 23, 2020)

Billybob said:


> I, respectifully, disagree. There are cameras that have high resolution, there are cameras that are stellar in low-light, and there are cameras that shoot 12fps mechanical (and 20fps electronic), but there is no camera that puts all of the above together in one package.



You've got me on the fps but I'll argue the "high resolution vs high ISO" meme all day long. When viewed at the same size all shipping FF sensors are remarkably close to one another at high ISOs. If anything I think the higher resolution sensors win on detail.

But yeah...at release nothing is going to touch the R5's combination of IQ and fps assuming the AF is capable. So my earlier statement would have to be qualified that if you don't need the fps there are other bodies which can compete on stills.



> Thus, it depends on your photography. If you shoot studio, or studio and landscapes, or weddings, then yes the R5 may be overkill. However, wildlife photography often requires heavy cropping, shooting at daybreak/twilight and attempting to capture skittish, and erratically moving critters who may be some distance away. I'm sorry, but your 5Ds just doesn't cut it.



Of course it does, if you can live with 5 fps. And yes there are wildlife photographers who can work with 5 fps including one rather accomplished frequent poster on this forum. Not saying higher fps isn't nice, but it's not an absolute necessity to get the job done. I don't do much wildlife photography but I do sports and the 5Ds retired my faster fps cameras, something that surprised me. I found I was still nailing peak moment shots without difficulty and the IQ gain was tremendous.

At any rate, I hope the R5's AF can keep up. 45mp @ 12/20 fps + 8k video is just jaw dropping at this time. If the AF can perform then this covers everyone's high end desires. Well...except perhaps the niche that also wants 80mp.


----------



## Billybob (Apr 24, 2020)

dtaylor said:


> You've got me on the fps but I'll argue the "high resolution vs high ISO" meme all day long. When viewed at the same size all shipping FF sensors are remarkably close to one another at high ISOs. If anything I think the higher resolution sensors win on detail.



We probably agree more than we disagree. I'm not going to argue with myself on this issue. When I shot Nikon D8XX cameras, they were considered noisy, but there was always much more detail remaining at high ISO than with the 20-24MP cameras. Yes, low MP-camera images were marginally cleaner , but the extra detail more than compensated for increased noise. 



> Of course it does, if you can live with 5 fps. And yes there are wildlife photographers who can work with 5 fps including one rather accomplished frequent poster on this forum. Not saying higher fps isn't nice, but it's not an absolute necessity to get the job done. I don't do much wildlife photography but I do sports and the 5Ds retired my faster fps cameras, something that surprised me. I found I was still nailing peak moment shots without difficulty and the IQ gain was tremendous.



I've never shot the 5Ds cameras--I had already moved on to Nikon before its release--so I have no idea how snappy it performs, so I'll take your word on it. It's absolutely true that people shoot sports/wildlife with 5fps or less. Bob Beamon's 1968 29ft world record long jump was shot with a manual focus camera. The photographer set focus for right above the pit and snapped at exactly the right time. However, just because it can be done, doesn't make something optimal. There are people who can perform complex mathematics on an abacus or using a slide rule (I still have mine but have long since forgotten how to use it). I'd rather use a computer. You can build a house using hand tools, but power tools work so much better. So, you're absolutely correct. You can do any type of photography with any camera available today. BIF shooting can be done with a 12MP 5D classic and a 70-300mm non-L lens. But there are far better tools for these specialized purposes. I'd much rather shoot sports with a 1DX range or D5 or A9 body with a 400mm f/4 outdoors or a 70-200 f/2.8 indoors. For most cases, however, it's more about the lens choice than the body, so I'm not surprised that you're able to use the 5Ds as an all-around camera. 



> At any rate, I hope the R5's AF can keep up. 45mp @ 12/20 fps + 8k video is just jaw dropping at this time. If the AF can perform then this covers everyone's high end desires. Well...except perhaps the niche that also wants 80mp.



On that we definitely agree. To me, the 40-50MP range is optimal. More than enough resolution for most purposes, but not so much data that the camera gets bogged down processing images. 

We shall see.


----------



## SpaceGhost1969 (Jun 25, 2020)

My vote is the 1DC in the top 5 list. A 1DX with unlimited video recording and 4K DCI. Oh yeah, and it was the first DSLR in the world to offer 4K.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 25, 2020)

I don't do much action shooting. I realize that folks depend upon what is perhaps derisively called "spray and pray." I normally just try to get the peak of the action. For normal things like sports, how many frames per second do you need to guarantee that you don't wind up with a shot just before and then one right after the peak?


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 25, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I don't do much action shooting. I realize that folks depend upon what is perhaps derisively called "spray and pray." I normally just try to get the peak of the action. For normal things like sports, how many frames per second do you need to guarantee that you don't wind up with a shot just before and then one right after the peak?


Your post doesn't seem to fit in this thread... still I'll give you a quick reply. 

You wrote: "for normal things like sports"...
Well therein lies the issue.
There is no 'normal' in sports. The nature, speed, unpredictability, distance to subject, 'ideally composed' elements of many sports are so very different. I am not a professional sports shooter, but I have taken photos of various sports (from motor racing in various forms, to human track and field, to soccer, tennis, frisbee, golf, surfing/kite-surfing/and other water sports, etc, etc, I could go on) and it varies HUGELY.

The 'peak' window (ideal-moment) to capture in one sport may be much less than 1/20th of a second. In another sport you may have around a second or more. It really does vary hugely! For some sports it is quite easy to predict that moment (whether short or long) but for other sports it can almost be impossible to predict that precise moment.

For many sports 5 frames per second (fps) may suffice, for others 20 fps is closer to the mark. I don't 'spray and pray' - but depending on the sports, lighting and other variables, I find a camera that can take around 10 fps is pretty good to cover most bases. However for many serious and professional sports photographers, they will look for the highest frame rate possible. Then there comes aspects of autofocus speed, accuracy, tracking algorithms, etc. This is another very important aspect to be considered too. 

Regards,

PJ


----------



## stevelee (Jun 25, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> Your post doesn't seem to fit in this thread... still I'll give you a quick reply.


Thanks for the reply. That's something I've been wondering about during all the discussions here where people are bringing up fps as something of great importance, while it is mostly irrelevant to me. Something in the thread must have made me think of the issue, off-topic though it may be.


----------

