The 10 Most Important Canon EOS Digital Cameras of All-Time

I've owned 5 of your top 10: 300D; R5; 70D; 7Dii; EOS M; and the Dishonourable Mentioned 5DSr. And, I still have the 300D alongside my R5ii, R5 and R7. If I had to keep one MILC and one DSLR it would be the R5ii and the 5DSr. Once I got the 5DSr, I sold my 7Dii and 5Div. The 5DSr gave by far the best IQ, outresolved the 7Dii and had better AF than it, albeit not its burst rate. I've had some of my best bird shots, including BIF with it as well as landscapes. It took the R5 for me to sell it. Here's my favourite from the 5DSr with the EF 100-400mm ii.

View attachment 227521
Clearly you were capable of correct exposure. The camera wasn’t for those that habitually underexposed !
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I think the 1D MarkII deserves a place on the list. That was the camera that really got serious wildlife photographers to switch over to digital from film. That was a very productive time in my life for photography and I still go back to those files and reprocess them and make great looking prints. I had the 1D Mark III for a couple of years and I never had any focusing issues with it. The 1D Mark 4 was my all time favorite DSLR and the the last one I owned before going 100% mirrorless. Canon to this day still hasn't offered a gripped body that can power the big whites with a bigger pixel density than the 1D4, which would be about 27mp if it was full frame.
 
Upvote 0
A good read but I must disagree with your view on the 5DSr. It was made for big scenes and/or fine detail. Many studio shooters product/fashion still use this body as the later offerings don't improve their results. I wish I had not sold mine but it was a heavy beast and I'm not getting any younger!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Looking back at the 6D, we should be grateful for what we have today. That camera was actually pretty overated back then, totaly unsoficient by modern standards. I’m fully aware that many photographers literally built their careers on it, but considering that it could barely autofocus using anything other than the center point, it’s no surprise that people often relied on its Live View, before the dual-pixel era Live View instead. In today’s money, body would cost roughly $2,920.

I know the technology wasn’t fully mature yet, and large sensors were objectively expensive, but there’s also another side to the coin. Smartphones were still largely irrelevant in 2013, so dedicated cameras had a clear path to whatever value manufacturers assigned to them.
 
Upvote 0