skip to Main Content

Canon EOS 5D Mark III is the most used camera among winning photojournalists

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Is The Most Used Camera Among Winning Photojournalists
Canon EOS 5D Mark III most loved among photojournalists

Canon EOS 5D Mark III: Amazon USA, B&H Photo, Digitalrev, eBay, Adorama, Canon USA

At a glance:

  • 22.3MP Full-Frame CMOS Sensor
  • DIGIC 5+ Image Processor
  • 3.2″ 1.04m-Dot ClearView II LCD Monitor
  • Full HD 1080p Video Recording at 30 fps
  • 61-Point High Density Reticular AF
  • Native ISO 25600, Extended to ISO 102400
  • 6 fps Shooting in RAW+JPEG
  • 63-Zone Dual Layer Metering Sensor
  • 14-Bit RAW Files and S-RAW Format
  • Magnesium Alloy Body, SD/CF Card Slots

You’re probably heard about the World Press 2017 Photo Contest. The contest saw 80,408 images made by 5,034 photographers from 125 different countries.

And guess what? The Canon EOS 5D Mark III (click here) is the most used camera among those photojournalists who won a price. The data was broke down by Spanish site Photolari. They also broke down which camera brands where used most. 55.5% of the photographers used a Canon camera, 30.55% a Nikon, 8.3% a Fuji, the rest is Pentax and Leica. Sony is not among the bunch, no one cares to use it for professional assignments (just kidding).

The used cameras are shown below.

Cameras used at World Press Photo 2017. Image ©

My guess is the Canon EOS 5D Mark III will remain a bestseller for long time, despite the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV has been announced and is available. The EOS 5D Mark III is just a great DSLRs, and that’s not going to change soon.

To see all winning photos from all categories please click here, or jump directly to the gallery.

  • Iki

    So, not a single one of those 80,000 images were taken with a sony?
    I’m guessing that the graph only shows which cameras were used for the winning images, and not which were used as a whole.
    And theres no wonder that Canon came so high up, it’s the most bought camera brand…
    There were also only 19 people who looked through the 80.000 images. That alone makes the contest quite faulty…

    • CW Steve

      World Press Photo Contest “quite faulty”? haha, that’s the joke of the day!

      • Iki

        There were only 19 members who decided which of the 80.000 photos were good.

        If all of them looked through the images they would have to at least look at each image for a minute or two.
        Are you telling me that these 19 professionals sat there 8 hours a day, for 333 days?

        • Andrei

          Your actually calculated how many days one person would need to look at all pictures, not 19 of them…

        • Wade Marks

          Sigh. If you read a bit more deeply, you will see that there are different categories of photos, and each category gets its own smaller jury. Then once the best of those are chosen they go to the general jury. It’s kind of like a playoff system in sports. It isn’t like every team plays every other team in the playoffs. There is a system to narrow it down.

          You may quibble with the choices, but it’s absurd to think that somehow there’s this overwhelming number of images to judge and these jurists cannot handle it, and so they choose haphazardly. This is a respected competition, been going on for decades, and does command respect.

          • Iki

            It states that there are 80.000 images.
            No matter how many people you have you need to look at them for it to actually be possible to judge them.
            There were only 8 categories. Meaning it would take at least (80.000×2=160.000/60=2667/8=333/8=41) 41 days of 8 hours a day.
            This is if they only needed two minutes for each picture (highly unlikely as they needed to compare each image)

            It specifically states that there are only 19 members of the jury.

            And based on their site it would only take them 1 week to look through every photo…

          • Wade Marks

            If you read a bit deeper into their site, they explain their methodology for going through the large amount of photos:

            The judging process for the World Press Photo contest involves a News and Documentary jury, three specialized juries and a General Jury.

            It takes place in several rounds over a two-week period in January and February of each year.
            /end of quote.

            So again, it’s like a playoff system in sports. That’s how they get through the large amount of photos. It’s a sorting system.

            This is a very prestigious award and the methodology used is legit. If it were not someone would have already noticed it by now. Plus. there are several prestigious photographers and members of the press who serve as judges. They are not going to attach their names to something fraudulent.

          • Iki

            As it states on their site, the photos get split into 4 categories (news and documentary, sports, nature, and people.)
            These 4 categories are judged by 3 people each. (exception being news and documentary, which has 5 people judging.)
            This judging takes place during 1 week.
            Given 80.000 photos, split into 4, that gives each group 20.000 images to look through.
            If they looked through each image it would take 83 days, but they manage to do so in 7.
            (they have (7×8=56×60=3360) minutes to look through all 20.000 images (given that they work 8 hours a day, for a full week) that is (20.000/3360=0.006) less than 1/10 a second for each image…

            Then they take the best of each category and gives judge them with a new jury. (this would likely take a week or so, since there would be a lot less images.)

            Given this. They need to prioritise images, probably limiting which they look through by which camera they were taken with, or who took them.

            I’m not saying they don’t pick good images. But there are images they don’t look at.

          • Wade Marks

            First off, 20,000 photos/3360 min is about 6 photos per minute, or about 1 photo every 10 seconds.

            Secondly, I definitely don’t think your assumption of it taking 2 minutes per photo is realistic; 2 min is a long time to stare at a photo; these judges don’t need 2 min to evaluate a photo.

            And for this contest, the best photos will be the ones that make a big impact on the viewer in the general public, with the average viewer just glancing at them. That’s the way it is in reality…today’s media consumers give you a tiny amount of their attention in which to make an impact. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the judges want to go through images quickly, since that’s the way the public will do so.

            Thirdly, I do think that these judges can go through a lot of photos very quickly and narrow their selections down.

            Fourth, within each category and jury, we don’t know if the the photos are subdivided even further, where each juror is given a batch to individually narrow down before going into group evaluation.

            So I would say that every image is indeed look at…the question is for how long and by how many judges.

          • Iki

            One week of 8 hour work days (working even through the weekend) gives you 7×8 = 56 hours.
            56 hours = 56×60 = 3360 minutes.
            You have 20.000 images divided on those minutes 20.000/3360 = 5.95.
            (i must have calculated something wrong in my previous comment) but that still gives you 6 images each minute.
            1 image per 10 second.
            These shall all be looked at by 3-5 individual people, shall all be compared, and all be judged.
            (and that is if they work continuously, no stops, 8 hours a day, for 7 days.)

            Even given this, they have to open each image file, or look at a print (printing would be less likely as it would take an enormous amount of space)
            So they would at least loose some time in between each image.

            Then you have to consider that, since there are more than 1 person, each of them will have to voice their opinion, at least as much as a “pass”
            So these 3-5 individuals get under 10 seconds to form an opinion bases on all the other images they’ve already seen, and then cast a vote, which, given 5 people, would take up a lot of the time…

            If each image is looked upon by only one of the members, then they would have (20.000/3=6666 images /3360 = ~2 images a minute.)
            2 images a minute, or one every thirty seconds.
            (note that this is with the mentioned 8×7 working schedule)
            But then you couldn’t call it a fair competition.
            As each image would only be judged by one person, and not the same who judged another.
            This would lead to only some of the images from each member getting picked (individual favourite) which would go against the whole purpose of a jury.

          • I suggest that you take your argument up with the World Press as apposed griping about it here.

          • Iki

            Well, original I wasn’t.
            I just found the statement about there not being a single sony photo amongst the 80.000 strange.
            (original version of this article didn’t contain the joke part)

          • No Sony in the winning photos… I can buy that. No Sony in the 80,408 photos? No way. Had to be. Just didn’t win.

          • He’s a Sony user upset because Sony didn’t make it / wasn’t mentioned. Why he and others feel the need to come to a Canon oriented site and complain about it is beyond me. We weren’t the judges nor was CW or CR. I enjoyed reading your replies to him but I believe it feel on deaf ears.

            Also I have noticed that DPREVIEW hasn’t yet posted anything about it. I kind of doubt that they will given the pro Sony sentiment there.

          • Iki

            What makes you think I’m a Sony user?
            I have Canon, nikon, Sony, Panasonic and olympus cameras.

            The reason I “complained” was the fact that it said none of 80.000 images was taken by a Sony.

          • Because until now you haven’t mentioned any other brands and a lot of Sony users come here and bash Canon with Childish remarks. Why they feel the need to is beyond me. Look at my profile. I don’t go to Sony Alpha Rumors and leave nasty remarks. I own Sony gear too. I have nothing against other brands. But I dislike people with private profiles trolling any brand. I would rather them show me what they can do with their camera. Regardless of brand.


          • Iki

            Well. The most common reason would be the comparison between cameras, and the fact that the canonwatch admin seems to dislike sony.
            Most people seemed to like Canon, but since they haven’t released anything with comparable specs at the same pricepoint, some are getting angry with them.

    • Charles

      It is impossible to win awards with a Sony, that´s why noone is using Sony.
      And people who ware using Sony as snappers switch to Canon when they realize that that´s the only way to realize their photographic goals.

      Wow, trolling is such fun. – now, I´ll go to Sony rumours and tell them the truth – I bet they already know… or they weren´t so insecure ;) Have a nice weekend :)

      • Iki

        I see that you don’t know the definition of trolling.

        • Charles

          There is a definition for that?

          • Iki


  • whensly

    great camera I guess but no fun.

    • Panacea

      I guess the Sony people were stroking off and having fun with their dynamic range while the Canon (and Nikon) people were working their *actual press jobs* and documenting history.

Back To Top