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

IcyBergs

I have a Sony...TV
May 31, 2016
132
283
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sporgon and vjlex

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,263
462
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.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,754
8,491
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

EOS M6 Mark II
Feb 21, 2020
81
107
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

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 22, 2019
66
81
Ireland
www.colin-judge.com
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

EOS RP
Aug 28, 2012
376
145
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.
 

becceric

Making clumsy photographic mistakes since 1980
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2016
46
85
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

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
153
274
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.
 
Feb 15, 2020
460
316
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: slclick

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
....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.
 

IcyBergs

I have a Sony...TV
May 31, 2016
132
283
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. :cool:

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
415
442
USA
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
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
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. :cool:

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

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

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,387
2,528
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)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Del Paso
<-- start Taboola -->