Beginner Canon EOS RP vs 5D Mk III

Messages
6
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello! I think this is my first post here so hi everyone. (please feel free to move this to newbies if its more suitable)

I think it has come time to upgrade my camera body, I'm currently using an old Canon 600D which I bought approximately 10 years ago and it's served me well. I've got to a point though where I'm getting a little frustrated by the performance of it. I'm finding my photos are looking more and more grainy as time goes on. I'm sure this is due to me comparing my images to those taken on much more modern cameras (and by far more talented people more importantly) however I'm feeling that even at low ISOs my images suffer. I also find that my auto focus is a bit slow an inaccurate.

I mainly use my camera for travel and motorsport events but I also like to try my hand at nature photography now an again. My only lenses are a Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 and I managed to grab a great bargain on an EF 70-200mm F2.8 L last year so I'm drawn to sticking with Canon.

I don't have a massive budget and I've been looking second hand, You can get a fair condition 5D III with a lowish shutter count for about £500 on the usual places and this was originally what I was intending to get however I've noticed a few EOS RPs popping up for a just a little bit more money.

I've spent a long time looking at reviews and I'm aware of just how good the 5D iii is/was when it came out, unfortunately a lot of the reviews of the EOS RP are a little less favourable but a lot of gripes seem to be video related which doesn't interest me or battery life related which isn't too much of an issue as I do this purely for fun and I'm never taking a thousand photos in a day. The RP also appears to have had software updates since most of the reviews were released. I'm swaying a little towards the RP as its mirrorless and I think the RF mount will have more longevity although I don't have enough budget for any RF lenses and would stick with EF lenses and adapters! If I went to the 5D I would have to replace my 17-55mm as that is EF-S mount.

A small point as well but size is a factor, I only have a small camera bag which I usually carry body + lens and spare telephoto, I'm worries going up to a 5D won't fit!

I guess what I'm asking is if anyone has made a similar choice and what would you go for in 2023? Has anyone got both and done any comparisons? I'd really appreciate any opinions!

And some demo photos; the kingfisher looks so grainy for only a slight crop and the otters are so quick I had so many out of focus shots of them!

IMG_4393 by Tommy P UK, on Flickr

IMG_5941 by Tommy P UK, on Flickr

IMG_5582 by Tommy P UK, on Flickr

IMG_5031 by Tommy P UK, on Flickr
 
The RP is a great little camera, I still have mine. If you’re in the north west very welcome to borrow it and try. I like it very much! Works good with all EF lens via the adapter etc.
 
17-50 will be no good as it is not full frame lens.

Unless you need video 5d is far superior camera in every way and I strongly prefer it over R6 for stills which is far better than ultra budget crappy evf rp
 
The 17-55 will work on the RP with the adaptor but obviously the camera will automatically crop to aps-c dimensions so you’ll lose some resolution.
 
Is there a reason for looking at full frame cameras? With your kit, and what you shoot, a 7Dmk2 may be a better bet.
 
a very generous offer sticktape unfortunately I'm based in London so a bit far away.

I think my main aim to moving up to FF was for lower noise, better low ISO performance and a bit better dynamic range. Honestly I was also drawn by the increase in cheaper high end EF lenses due to people moving to mirrorless. It also comes a lot down to getting back into photography and wanting some new toys a little so why not move up a bit!
 
Is there a reason for looking at full frame cameras? With your kit, and what you shoot, a 7Dmk2 may be a better bet.

Unless there's a requirement for a high FPS rate, then the 5DIII is a much better camera - especially given that the main criteria for upgrading is
to be able to cope with higher ISO.
 
Given the interest in sports and wildlife, I'd say an 80D or 90D would be a better solution. The newer sensors will be better in low light and dynamic range.
If you are drawn to the increase in cheaper EF L lenses on the secondhand market, stick to an EF camera.

I have an RP and it's a great camera, but not ideal for wildlife or sports, the AF is fine, but nothing like the R6.
Also using EF lenses on an RP with adapter works fine, but the RP is a small body so you're taking a sizable EF L lens, making it longer and adding an extra 80-100g to the weight.
Which makes it a bit unbalanced on the small RP. It also makes it trickier to fit in a bag. Also adapter will cost an additional £50-80 which if you're on a strict budget is money better spent elsewhere.

When I changed over to the RP, I initially kept my EF 24-105 f4 L lens, used it on an adapter, but it's bulkier and cumbersome and decided to swap to the RF version (also because my EF lens developed an issue).

On the plus side for walking around/travel, the RP paired with the RF 35 f1.8, or RF 50 f1.8 is a nice light/small package.

To be fair, if you're talking about upgrading to full frame and the only lens you have that you'll keep is the EF 70-200 f2.8, then why not go for a Sony A7 III and either use the 70-200 on a Sigma MC11 adapter or sell it and buy one of the more affordable 3rd party Sony fit lenses (eg Sigma 100-400 DN for £680 s/h).
 
I hadn't really considered the higher end crop sensor bodies. I've been having a look at the 80D which seems like it would do nicely. I have looked at swapping to other systems but I'm fairly happy with Canon.

I think I may put this purchase on hold for the moment as I've just accepted a new job in the states and I believe camera gear is slightly cheaper out there so it makes sense to wait. I'll have lots of lovely opportunities to go out and take photos! I really appreciate all the time taken for the responses on this thread so far!
 
Back
Top