Canon EOS 5D Mark III vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2500 (Lumix DMC-FZ2000)

Winner
Canon EOS 5D Mark III

71

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2500 (Lumix DMC-FZ2000)

67

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Great viewfinder coverage
Viewfinder coverage
100%
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.71x
Great battery life
Battery life
950 shots
 

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2500 (Lumix DMC-FZ2000)

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Built-in flash
Built-in flash
Usually standard

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 5D Mark III.

competitors

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Competitors

Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,149 - $1,297 body only

$1,797 with 24-120mm lens

Built-in focus motor Has a built-in focus motor
Battery life Much longer battery life
Light sensitivity Worse maximum light sensitivity
Canon EOS 6D

Canon EOS 6D

Pro DSLR

$999 - $1,499 body only

$1,330 - $1,899 with 24-105mm lens

GPS Has a GPS
Size Smaller
Viewfinder coverage Much less viewfinder coverage
Placeholder

Sony a6400

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$898 body only

$971 - $998 with 16-50mm lens

Size Significantly smaller
Touch screen Has a touch screen
Battery life Much shorter battery life

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2500 (Lumix DMC-FZ2000) Competitors

Placeholder

Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ1000 II

Super zoom

$898

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Size Slightly smaller
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Placeholder

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX99

Travel zoom

$448

Size Much smaller
Thickness Much thinner
Aperture Narrower aperture
Placeholder

Canon PowerShot SX740 HS

Travel zoom

$338 - $399

Size Much smaller
Thickness Much thinner
Aperture Narrower aperture

discussion

Canon EOS 5D Mark III
EOS 5D Mark III
Canon

Report a correction
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2500 (Lumix DMC-FZ2000)
Lumix DMC-FZ2500 (Lumix DMC-FZ2000)
Panasonic

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments