# Counting down my five favorite Canon digital cameras ever. Coming in at #3…..



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 14, 2020)

> ….. The Canon EOS 5D Mark III
> This is when I think the EOS 5D series came into its own as a professional and consumer workhorse. We finally got a professional autofocus system in the 5D line of DSLRs. I think everything came together on this camera, and I still use it today.
> I wasn’t into video, so I never used the Canon EOS 5D Mark II on a regular basis, and that archaic 9-point AF system was the dealbreaker for me on that camera. During the era of the EOS 5D Mark II, I was shooting primarily with the Canon EOS-1D Mark III and Canon EOS-1D Mark IV.
> The EOS 5D Mark III launch was also the coming-out party for this site, so I’ll always have a special place in my heart for the camera!
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## vjlex (Apr 14, 2020)

Wow, you just blew right past the 5D Mark II.  In all fairness though, it seems there are 2 different 5D camps: those who started on the even 5D series, and those who started on the odd. 5D Mark II was my first full-frame DSLR (even though it was at the end of its product cycle), because the upgrades to the 5D3 seemed too incremental. 5D Mark IV has been almost everything I want in a full-frame camera... except for the lack of an articulated screen.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 14, 2020)

The 5DIII didn't quite produce as nice pictures as the 5DII, something just a little off with them to me so I never bought one of my own(but did try two). The main thing in the 5DIII was it had AF.


----------



## IcyBergs (Apr 14, 2020)

I definitely didn't see it coming, I figured after the 5D2 that the 3 would be another high resolution video focused body with incremental improvement in AF. I agree that it truly made the 5D line the "all-arounder" it is today and made the camera desirable for shooters of a much wider range of subjects.


----------



## Cochese (Apr 14, 2020)

I never owned either, but I rented both of them a lot. The 5DMIII was just better all around for pretty much everything wanted it to be at the time. I recall the regret I had after using it on my 6th wedding shoot and realizing how much better it was at pretty much every task I needed it for. It felt more responsive and it was the first one I felt that I could trust the auto-focus. 
Still, I ended up skipping past both and buying a 5DMIV, now this was truly the beast I had thought the II would be and expected the III to be.


----------



## slclick (Apr 14, 2020)

I was an early adopter and it's been my main (and only FF digital) camera since. Ready for something else, what that will be is anyone's guess. The more and more I think about it, the R5 might not be for me. Too expensive and too video centric. Hell, I might just be getting an R for next to nothing at some point and being happy..


----------



## David Hull (Apr 14, 2020)

This was a great camera. I used mine for several years and then sold it to get the EOS R. I like the R better but there is really nothing bad to say about the 5D III.


----------



## Treyarnon (Apr 14, 2020)

The first Camera on the list which I have not owned!
Strangely, to me the 5D3 was the great disappointment of the 5D line. The mk 1 and mk 2 were aimed at a very specific section of the market [aka - 'me'] - they were all about giving as much image quality as possible at an affordable price point (relatively speaking of course - but this was 1Ds image quality at half the price); fancy bells and whistles like lots of AF points and high frame rates were not great concerns.
However the 5D3 changed the approach - it was not really a camera aimed at the fans of the previous 5D's at all - this was an 'all round' camera. The image quality didn't seem to get a lot of improvement, and with a higher asking price, I said no.
The other major problem for the 5D3, was it arrived at the same time as Nikon finally got their act together with the D800... which did completely overshadow the 5D3. I know a lot of photographers who sold their 5D2 to go the the D800, while it took an awful long time until I met someone with a 5D3 round their neck.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 14, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The 5DIII didn't quite produce as nice pictures as the 5DII, something just a little off with them to me so I never bought one of my own(but did try two). The main thing in the 5DIII was it had AF.


I had both the 5DII and the 5DIII. The 5DIII was better than the 5DII in every way, including the quality of the photos.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 14, 2020)

I agree that the 5DIII was the first affordable FF workhorse. I sold mine two years ago after several years of good use for only $650 less than I paid for it new!


----------



## slclick (Apr 14, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I agree that the 5DIII was the first affordable FF workhorse. I sold mine two years ago after several years of good use for only $650 less than I paid for it new!


The 5D3 was garnering good used money until last Fall. It seriously plummeted once the R and RP was saturating the market. (I missed my opportunity)


----------



## picperfect (Apr 14, 2020)

yes! 5D III finally got a usable AF system instead of the sorry joke in 5D and Mk. II. 
SInce I missed selling my 5D III while used prices were still acceptable, I will keep and use it now until Canon launches what I want.And I don't have to worry any longer about carrying around a an "expensive" camera in dark back alleys and URBEX dungeons. 

my #3 - EOS 7D
my #4 - EOS 40D
my #5 - EOS 350D


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 14, 2020)

shunsai said:


> Wow, you just blew right past the 5D Mark II.  In all fairness though, it seems there are 2 different 5D camps: those who started on the even 5D series, and those who started on the odd. 5D Mark II was my first full-frame DSLR (even though it was at the end of its product cycle), because the upgrades to the 5D3 seemed too incremental. 5D Mark IV has been almost everything I want in a full-frame camera... except for the lack of an articulated screen.


When the 5D2 was introduced, I already owned a 5D. More importantly, I also had purchased a 40D the year before, which had a much better focusing system than both the 5D and 5D2. That was the start of my owning both FF and APS-C bodies and using them for different tasks. More importantly, I could get really good 20 X 30 inch prints with a 12MP 5D and 10MP 40D, as long as I didn't crop very much and the viewing distance was reasonable. The 5D3, however, had the 1DX focusing system which, to me, was anything but a minor improvement. It fixed my major complaint with the 5D. When the shutter release on my 40D became intermittent, I replaced it with a used 7D, which only gets used when I need the reach. As I get older, that is becoming less frequent.

*Update: *The 5D2 was introduced in 2008. In the third week of August 2007, Nikon had introduced the D3 and D300, three days after the 40D and 1DS3 introductions. Both Nikons had about 12MP and basically the same focusing system, although the D300 focusing points were more spread out. The D3 was FF and D300 was APS-C. The D300 was the slowpoke at 8FPS and a lot of Nikon photographers owned both, using the D3 most of the time and the D300 when they needed reach. I just borrowed their idea.

Arguably, one of the biggest consequences of the 5D2 was the almost complete destruction of the market for the 1DS3. Both cameras had 21MP.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 14, 2020)

I've owned all of the 5D series, in several cases, more than one. The 5D MK III definitely deserves a place in the list. I'm going to assume that the 5D MK II will be #1 or #2, it really shook up the camera world.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 14, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've owned all of the 5D series, in several cases, more than one. The 5D MK III definitely deserves a place in the list. I'm going to assume that the 5D MK II will be #1 or #2, it really shook up the camera world.



yes, but only for the tiny minority of cheapskate video folks who ofc were excited to get their hands on FF sensor and lenses at a fraction of the cost of proper video gear. For (majority of) stills shooters the 5D II had close to no appeal vs. original 5D. 

Overall, the 5D II started the crazy wave of "absolute entitlement" and whining for "4k 24/30/60/120/240 (or 8k) in every single camera!" across all forums. And all camera makers succumbed to it. At the expense of the majority of customers who only need and would prefer to also have a choice of stills-optimized cameras.


----------



## BGBVCBCCA (Apr 14, 2020)

The Canon 5D Mark III was my first professional quality camera. I love it and it is currently my only camera. Plan to keep using it for some time yet before going mirrorless. I continue to be amazed at the image quality I get with this camera. Earlier I had a Rebel XT, which was not a bad camera, but the kit lenses that came with were absolute garbage! Nothing but frustration and deleted photos with that setup. I have 2 L lenses now and an amazing sigma 180mm macro lens and could not be happier with my purchasing decisions.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Apr 14, 2020)

So far I have owned each one, rebel was my first DSLR. had a bunch in between that and the 5D, and then a couple in between that and the 5DIII. Let's see what the last two are...for me it would be the 1DIV and the 5DII, although I found the 5DS was more of a favorite for me than the 5DIII.


----------



## vinsin (Apr 14, 2020)

I surely have a special place in my heart for 5D Mark III as I upgraded to this from Rebel Xs in 2012. Have been using it continuously before giving it to my son this year. Got an excellent price on 5D Mark IV in December 2019, so upgraded to it. Mark IV certainly has some nice upgrades, though nothing substantially different from Mark III.


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 14, 2020)

shunsai said:


> Wow, you just blew right past the 5D Mark II.  In all fairness though, it seems there are 2 different 5D camps: those who started on the even 5D series, and those who started on the odd. 5D Mark II was my first full-frame DSLR (even though it was at the end of its product cycle), because the upgrades to the 5D3 seemed too incremental. 5D Mark IV has been almost everything I want in a full-frame camera... except for the lack of an articulated screen.


Yes, I owned 2 5D mk1, and when the MkII came out I did not see a compelling reason to upgrade since the autofocus had not evolved and I had no use for the video capabilities or even live view. A lot is made of the sensor resolution, but I did not see that as critical, I had made a 51 inch high canvas print of a portrait from a 5D file and it looked great. The 5D mk III took a leap in autofocus capabilities, buffer size, ISO range, shooting modes (S in particular) and responsiveness. I guess that while professionals can justify upgrading to every new model amateurs will always make choices and stretch the gear until something compelling comes along. I did not go for the Mk4 for the same reason, and sold the Mk3 as I transitioned a few months ago to all-mirrorless.


----------



## IcyBergs (Apr 14, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've owned all of the 5D series, in several cases, more than one. The 5D MK III definitely deserves a place in the list. I'm going to assume that the 5D MK II will be #1 or #2, it really shook up the camera world.



I don't know if 5D2 makes this list...Craig says he skipped the 5D2 and wasn't a fan of the AF. 

I agree with you about it's place in history but not sure it makes _this _list.


----------



## IcyBergs (Apr 14, 2020)

picperfect said:


> yes, but only for the tiny minority of cheapskate video folks who ofc were excited to get their hands on FF sensor and lenses at a fraction of the cost of proper video gear. For (majority of) stills shooters the 5D II had close to no appeal vs. original 5D.
> 
> Overall, the 5D II started the crazy wave of "absolute entitlement" and whining for "4k 24/30/60/120/240 (or 8k) in every single camera!" across all forums. And all camera makers succumbed to it. At the expense of the majority of customers who only need and would prefer to also have a choice of stills-optimized cameras.


Video aside...I think the fact that the 5D2 offered a ~70% increase in resolution over the classic and prior to it's release you had to come up with $6k to touch 20+mp, I think it was very appealing for the portrait, studio, landscape and event still shooters and was a worthy upgrade from the classic. 

The video feature really overshadows this now in hindsight, and seems like it was the only big deal about the camera. I think that is in part to the fact that 20mp is so pedestrian these days we tend to take it for granted but if you look for full-frame 20+mp options back in 2008 its easy to see why this was such a popular camera and it wasn't just because of the video.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 14, 2020)

Yes. The 5D III is a great camera. Mine met a sad end under a large wave. It was brilliant up to then. 
Very reliable , great images. I've fond memories of it.


----------



## slclick (Apr 14, 2020)

Why is the iso listed at 100-6400? Should be 25,600, expandable to 102,400


----------



## AlanF (Apr 14, 2020)

My first FF digital. Got some excellent bird images with it paired with the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII. Its pixel pitch, about the same as for the 1DX series, is more tolerant than with the higher Mpx sensors.


----------



## Skux (Apr 14, 2020)

Bought one used last year to start doing paid gigs. It's durable, reliable, and handles wonderfully.

Sure it'd be nice to have a 5DIV or one of the newer mirrorless cameras, but as a photo-only guy, I don't need them.


----------



## CJudge (Apr 15, 2020)

slclick said:


> I was an early adopter and it's been my main (and only FF digital) camera since. Ready for something else, what that will be is anyone's guess. The more and more I think about it, the R5 might not be for me. Too expensive and too video centric. Hell, I might just be getting an R for next to nothing at some point and being happy..



If you do get the R, you will not be disappointed. A few months after the 5DIV launched, the internet hate train slowed down and most people agreed that it was actually a very nice upgrade to the 5DIII after all, both for stills AND for video (if you could learn to care less about the 4K crop). The R has all those benefits, plus a slew of mirrorless only features. It was a little rough around the edges at launch, but firmware updates have really made it excellent. Plus, there's the added bonus of the RF mount. Oh, and it's lighter and cheaper too.

If you don't feel that you need everything that the R5 will be brining to the table, then definitely get yourself the R. And then use the money that you save to get one of the stellar RF lenses.

My upgrade path was from the 6D to the R, and after about a week of getting used to the change, I've been loving it ever since.


----------



## dslrdummy (Apr 15, 2020)

As someone who intentionally by-passed the 5DII and went straight from the 5D to the 5DIII, I would be surprised if the 5DII made the list. I'm sure it was a great camera for those who owned it, just not as ground breaking as the 5D and not as competent as the 5DIII. Bigger question for me is whether the 7D or 7DII make the top 5.


----------



## slclick (Apr 15, 2020)

There is at least one 1D camera making this list....


----------



## becceric (Apr 15, 2020)

After years of Canon film SLRs, I finally went digital and bought the 5D mark II.While I liked the image results, I always fumbled with the controls. A few years later I picked up a 5D mark III. Almost immediately, my fumbling was gone. Whenever I used my 5D mark II as a backup, I fumbled again. For me the mark III is just better ergonomically. The improvements to make the mark III an “all-rouder” are also much appreciated.
I had hopes that last summer’s rumors of one more 5D iteration would appear, but the December 5D mark IV deals were irresistible. I picked up two 5D mark IVs which have also been a pleasure to use.


----------



## Billybob (Apr 15, 2020)

Yes, I've owned all the cameras on the list. The 300D was my first DSLR after going about a decade since using a Nikon SLR. I used it intermittently until buying the 40D, which rekindled my serious interest in photography. I "graduated" to the 7D, which I hated--it was an action camera, and at the time I wasn't doing action photography, and I found the IQ mediocre. I bought a used 5D to see what the fullframe fuss was all about. It was a nice toy with great IQ, but too many deficiencies for 2011. I then bought a used 5DII and eventually graduated to a 5DIII, which was my last Canon FF. I sold it in anticipation of the 6DII release--thinking that it would be good enough since I didn't need a professional level camera. Boy, was I wrong and disappointed. I'm intrigued by the R5 specs. However, I probably won't move in that direction. That's way too much money-- probably a minimum of $6000 for body and one decent lens--to switch for incremental improvements.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Apr 15, 2020)

I went -> 400d -> 40d -> 5d mark ii -> 5d mark iii -> 5d mark iv - > EOS R.

Personally I found the colour science on the 5d mark iv and EOS R to be the biggest improvement. I rarely have to change the green/magenta balance on those cameras. The 5d mark ii and to a lesser extent the 5d mark iii both had a strong magenta shift, which always required correction in post. 

Funnily enough, the most reliable autofocus performance I had was on the 5d mark iii. The copy of the mark iv I had was very inconsistent with AF. The EOS R has also been better than the mark iv for autofocus.

I have the RF 50mm 1.2 and RF 85mm 1.2 and for those two lenses alone, the EOS R has become my favourite canon camera I have ever owned. Can't wait to pick up an R5 as a primary body when it is finally released!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 15, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> ....I think the fact that the 5D2 offered a ~70% increase in resolution over the classic.



Wow ! Can I have some of what you're smoking, then my 5DS will have 140% more resolution than my 5DII !!  

When I got the 5DII I compared it to my 5D on an A2 or A1 print - I can't remember now, using the same lens at f/5.6, an EF 50/1.4, and there wasn't nearly as much difference in resolving of detail that I had expected. Native output size at 240dpi only goes from 18"x12" on the 5D to 23'x15" on the 5DII. The 5DS on the other hand has a native output size at the same dpi of 36"x24" which is twice the size of the original 5D, and so it has about double the potential resolution. 

My first digital Canon was the 5D, and I remember it cost a whopping £2,500 in 2005 which is equivalent to around £3,800 now. Previous to that I'd used the 1n, one of which I still have. I then got a 5DII in 2009 and sold the 5D, later regretted it and bought another. I still think that the 5D had, under some circumstances better colour definition than the 5DII. When not resolution limited, so for images where the subject matter is very close and filling the frame, ie: portraits, I still think the 5D is capable of producing images that are as good as anything, at least up to its native output size. I ran a 6D alongside the 5DII for a while, but eventually the different controls and lack of direct flash compensation annoyed the hell out of me. Due to the fact that AF was not high on my agenda I didn't get the 5DIII but moved from the II to the 5DS, which are dramatically powerful photographic tools in such a small bodies, and are very versatile. In fact about the only thing it can't do is shoot fast. It's a shame there won't be a 5DSII, at least not for a while until the mirrorless novelty calms down and there becomes a demand for a very high res dslr again. I see myself keeping the 5DS for a long time.


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 15, 2020)

Running low on new rumors..... or news.


----------



## IcyBergs (Apr 15, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Wow ! Can I have some of what you're smoking, then my 5DS will have 140% more resolution than my 5DII !!
> 
> When I got the 5DII I compared it to my 5D on an A2 or A1 print - I can't remember now, using the same lens at f/5.6, an EF 50/1.4, and there wasn't nearly as much difference in resolving of detail that I had expected. Native output size at 240dpi only goes from 18"x12" on the 5D to 23'x15" on the 5DII. The 5DS on the other hand has a native output size at the same dpi of 36"x24" which is twice the size of the original 5D, and so it has about double the potential resolution.
> 
> My first digital Canon was the 5D, and I remember it cost a whopping £2,500 in 2005 which is equivalent to around £3,800 now. Previous to that I'd used the 1n, one of which I still have. I then got a 5DII in 2009 and sold the 5D, later regretted it and bought another. I still think that the 5D had, under some circumstances better colour definition than the 5DII. When not resolution limited, so for images where the subject matter is very close and filling the frame, ie: portraits, I still think the 5D is capable of producing images that are as good as anything, at least up to its native output size. I ran a 6D alongside the 5DII for a while, but eventually the different controls and lack of direct flash compensation annoyed the hell out of me. Due to the fact that AF was not high on my agenda I didn't get the 5DIII but moved from the II to the 5DS, which are dramatically powerful photographic tools in such a small bodies, and are very versatile. In fact about the only thing it can't do is shoot fast. It's a shame there won't be a 5DSII, at least not for a while until the mirrorless novelty calms down and there becomes a demand for a very high res dslr again. I see myself keeping the 5DS for a long time.



I only smoke math.

I just did a quick approximation on pixels (hence the "~" - the actual number is 65%) but if you want to use your print size example the numbers are going to come out about the same.

Assuming of course that the prints you speak of are in fact rectangles and have four sides, meaning in order to calculate the area you must multiple the length of each side by the other and not just ad them which would make a 36x24 seem to merely be double an 18x12. 

Your 5D example the printed area of 18x12 = 216"
Your 5D2 example the printed area of 23x15 = 345"
Which comes out to about 60% more printed area

The printed area of 36x24 = 864"
Would represent 4x the print size you quoted for the Classic so 12.8 x 4 = 51.2


----------



## bbasiaga (Apr 15, 2020)

This camera still does everything I want it to as a hobbyist. I've got the upgrade bug to an R series of some kind, but I think I'll be keeping this body, along with the 5D i have along side it. 

I grabbed the MKIII off of one of those Ebay deals where they were heavily discounted, but not white box. So it was a steal at the time. 

-Brian


----------



## picperfect (Apr 15, 2020)

@IcyBergs right! 
same physical sensor size, so math is even simpler here. 5D - 13 (effective) MP; 5D II - 21 (effective) MP , = 61.5% more megapickles.


----------



## nickstan (Apr 17, 2020)

Looks like you put the iso range for the mark ii. The mark iii is 100- 25600


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 18, 2020)

picperfect said:


> @IcyBergs right!
> same physical sensor size, so math is even simpler here. 5D - 13 (effective) MP; 5D II - 21 (effective) MP , = 61.5% more megapickles.


Yes, but do you think that 61.5% more pixels gives you 61.5% more potential resolution ?


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 18, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> I only smoke math.
> 
> I just did a quick approximation on pixels (hence the "~" - the actual number is 65%) but if you want to use your print size example the numbers are going to come out about the same.
> 
> ...



Your maths is fine and dandy as far as output area goes, but where does any of that show the 21 mp 5DII to have 71% more resolution than the 5D ?

The 5DS has indeed (about) 4x the number of pixels as the original 5D and therefore it has around 2x the potential resolution as it's the same physical sensor size. There's a hint here in the fact that 4x the number of pixels doubles the resolution potential


----------



## slclick (Apr 18, 2020)

Maths and video....ugh....maybe I should get on the war cry for a stills only camera body bandwagon (although I know that's fruitless from Canon)


----------



## picperfect (Apr 18, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Yes, but do you think that 61.5% more pixels gives you 61.5% more potential resolution ?



it yields significantly more resolution [ceteris paribus], visible to the naked eye unless image is viewed on smartphone display or instagram.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 19, 2020)

picperfect said:


> it yields significantly more resolution [ceteris paribus], visible to the naked eye unless image is viewed on smartphone display or instagram.


Please define “significantly more”.
20% more resolution is noticeable to a non professional eye. 
5-10% more resolution may be noticeable to a pro photog.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 19, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Please define “significantly more”.
> 20% more resolution is noticeable to a non professional eye.
> 5-10% more resolution may be noticeable to a pro photog.



21 Mp vs. 13 MP is visible to untrained monkeys. Significantly and clearly.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 19, 2020)

picperfect said:


> 21 Mp vs. 13 MP is visible to untrained monkeys. Significantly and clearly.



I wouldn't go as far as disrespectfully calling untrained folks "untrained monkeys". 

However, 21MP vs 13MP : results in around 27% linear resolution difference. certainly quite a bit.


----------



## BillB (Apr 19, 2020)

picperfect said:


> 21 Mp vs. 13 MP is visible to untrained monkeys. Significantly and clearly.


What size output are the monkey’s looking at? 100 per cent screen display? 13x19 print? 8x10?


----------



## picperfect (Apr 19, 2020)

BillB said:


> What size output are the monkey’s looking at? 100 per cent screen display? 13x19 print? 8x10?



this monkey does not print (what for) but views raw images on a 32" 4k monitor. No problem seeing the difference, without any training whatsoever. Naked eye suffices.


----------



## BillB (Apr 19, 2020)

picperfect said:


> this monkey does not print (what for) but views raw images on a 32" 4k monitor. No problem seeing the difference, without any training whatsoever. Naked eye suffices.


And your viewing distance would be... ?


----------



## picperfect (Apr 19, 2020)

BillB said:


> And your viewing distance would be... ?



anywhere from 30cm to 1m ... any more questions?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 19, 2020)

Canon 5Ds print performance review - testing image quality with prints


Evaluating the Canon 5Ds in terms of real world print performance, specifically comparing prints taken with the 11MP 1Ds and 21MP 1Ds mk3




www.northlight-images.co.uk





And, I’d add, Keith didn’t use any interpolation software (he has some great articles on it’s use). Now the first answer people always give is well you could interpolate both high and low resolution images and get even better results so the differences would remain constant but the point is more subtle than that, I’d say if I want to offer a given print size what resolution can I do that with given the software we have, 24” x 36” is my maximum print size, obviously a 5DSr does that quite well but how does a 5D III or a 1DX II compare to that given print size when processed optimally With interpolation? I’d wager very few people could tell the difference in most real world situations.


----------



## BillB (Apr 19, 2020)

picperfect said:


> anywhere from 30cm to 1m ... any more questions?



No more questions, and thanks for the answers. Whether we can discern clear and significant differences in resolution depends on the display medium for the image, its size, and our viewing distance (among other things) so I was curious.


----------

