Why are EOS D5 so prevalent in portraiture?

[smirkk]

To preface, I must clarify that I am not primarily a photographer or a dedicated Canon user. While I do own two Canon cameras (a GX7 and an M50), my main experience is shooting video for work on a different system (Lumix and Blackmagic).

Given that I'm not a photographer, my usual environment involves cinema cameras and hybrid mirrorless systems.

However, my partner is a model, and I occasionally check the EXIF data on her photos when she receives them. To my surprise, I've noticed that 99% of the photographers use Canon, and 99% of those shoot with an EOS 5D MkIII or MkIV. Actually I can't even remember an instance where it WASN'T one of those two cameras.

My question is: Why are these "older" DSLRs so prevalent instead of Canon's newer mirrorless models? Is there something specific about these DSLRs that makes them more suitable for fashion and lifestyle portraiture?

Some of these are high-budget shoots, so I don't think the camera budget is a limiting factor.

[Tronhard]

First, as an aside, Canon do not make a D5, Nikon do.  Canon makes the 5D series. 🙂

To your point, I think it is fair to say that outside sports photography, where connectivity is a critical component and improvements tend to result in upgrades as soon as those are available to upload images in as close as real time as possible to agencies, papers, magazines and web publications. Getting an image of a sporting event like the Olympics is an incredibly competitive and demanding business.

For a lot of other applications, considering the cost of updating gear, professionals take the attitude that unless there is a compelling reason for doing so, then they will actually not change their gear frequently.  For portrait photography, where conditions are often highly controlled, the need to update is much less pressing.   I know of several such photographers who keep their cameras for many years - such cameras are built to last and if they do an acceptable job, then there is no economic sense in doing frequent upgrades especially as the photographers know their gear intimately.  The 5DIII and IV are rather classics in that context.

While the R5 (and now R5II) are extremely capable cameras, they use a different lens mount.  So, to gain the maximum benefit one might think that there is an added investment needed in RF glass.  This is mitigated by the ability to seamlessly use EF glass via adapters on R bodies with major reliability: but again, for such applications as portrait and modelling, there is no pressing need to invest in the considerable cost of upgrades.  That would be less true for applications such as news, sports, or wildlife, where the conditions are not as controlled and moving subjects will be better tracked by the excellent face and eye focusing of the R-series bodies and the in-body image stabilization.

Basically, for professionals, if it ain't broke don't fix it, it's just a tool and an expense.  Unlike enthusiasts, who often are significant purchasers of new high-end gear - either because they like technology, like to show they have the latest tech, or believe that the upgrade will elevate their photographic skills. 

The other factor, often ignored by non-professionals, is that the optics are really more significant than the bodies for many situations.  I think most professionals and experienced serious amateurs would agree with me when I say that the investment in glass is often greater, and will likely outlast the longevity of any one body, and would rather have great lenses and an older body than a new body an lesser lenses.

[shadowsports]

Well said Trevor. 👍

[Tronhard]

Thanks Rick!  One good example is this video: one of a series: