Canon EOS 5D Mark III vs Pentax K-5

Winner
Canon EOS 5D Mark III

100

Pentax K-5

82

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Large screen
Screen size
3.2"
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.71x
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
Many cross-type focus points
Cross type focus points
41
 

Reasons to buy the Pentax K-5

Dynamic range
Wide dynamic range
14.1 EV
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
104 ms shutter lag
Size
Really small
Prosumer size (131×97×73 mm)

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 5D Mark III.
Explore our gallery of 4 sample photos taken by the Pentax K-5.

competitors

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Competitors

Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,628 - $1,997 body only

$2,479 - $2,497 with 24-120mm lens

Dynamic range More dynamic range
Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Cross type focus points Many fewer cross-type focus points
Canon EOS 6D

Canon EOS 6D

Pro DSLR

$1,255 - $1,499 body only

$1,800 - $1,899 with 24-105mm lens

Dynamic range More dynamic range
GPS Has a GPS
Shutter lag Much more shutter lag
Nikon D810

Nikon D810

Pro DSLR

$2,399 - $2,797 body only

$3,497 with 24-120mm lens

Dynamic range More dynamic range
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Cross type focus points Many fewer cross-type focus points

Pentax K-5 Competitors

Pentax K-3

Pentax K-3

Entry-level DSLR

$699 - $739 body only

$900 with 18-55mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Startup delay More startup delay
Pentax K-50

Pentax K-50

Entry-level DSLR

$400 body only

$429 with 18-55mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Autofocus Video autofocus
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Pentax K-5 II

Pentax K-5 II

Entry-level DSLR

$665 body only

$915 with 18-135mm lens

Battery life Longer battery life
Shutter lag Much more shutter lag

discussion

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

Report a correction
Pentax K-5
K-5
Pentax

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments