….. 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.
It's going to be really interesting to see how Canon carries over the ergonomics of the EOS-1 series of DSLRs into a professional flagship mirrorless camera.
Canon EOS-1D X Specifications:
- 18.1mp Full-Frame CMOS Sensor
- ISO 100 – 51200
- 12fps
- 61 Autofocus Points
- 14bit RAW
- Dual DIGIC 5+ Processors
- Dual CF Card Slots
- Launched in 2012
- Launch price: $6799usd
Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Specifications:
- 20.2mp Full-Frame CMOS Sensor
- ISO 100 – 51200
- 14fps
- 61 Autofocus Points
- 14bit RAW
- Dual DIGIC 6+ Processors
- CF Card Slot
- CFast Card Slot
- Launched in 2016
- Launch price: $5999usd
Canon EOS-1D X Mark III Specifications:
- 20.1mp Full-Frame CMOS Sensor
- ISO 100 – 102400
- 16fps
- 191 Autofocus Points
- 14bit RAW
- DIGIC X
- Dual CFexpress Card Slots
- Launched in 2020
- Launch price: $6499usd
- Canon EOS-1D X Series
- Canon EOS 40D
- Canon EOS 5D Mark III
- Canon EOS 5D
- Canon EOS Rebel 300D
The original post has been edited and corrected. ;)
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.
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.
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 ..
Brian
#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.
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.
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! :)