Full frame Canon setup for $300 dollars!

photojunky

These cameras are a great deal used and hold up just fine to todays photography cameras for literally a fraction of the cost. I am blown away by the quality for the price.

Johnmcl7

Cheap yes but definitely doesn't hold up to today's cameras, aside from its low resolution 13mp sensor its high iso tops out at just iso3200 when current FF cameras are offering usable iso 50,000.  Even the small 1in sensors can offer better performance now:

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

If I was buying a cheap FF camera I'd spent a little more and get a Nikon D750 which can be found ridiculously cheap these days second hand despite being a current camera.  Ok not as cheap as the 5D but not that much more either and its sensor is orders of magnitude better for resolution, high iso, dynamic range and its AF system is one of the best out there.

photojunky

I agree with everything you are saying but also disagree with everything if that makes sense. Let me explain, you basically have given extreme examples that most Shooters would not need in the first place. Sure, a 50,000 expanded ISO comes in handy, but most people don't need this and would rarely use it. As for auto focus, and dynamic range, I don't think there is much of a difference for normal everyday shooting. When talking about image quality, there is more to it than a sharp bright colorful image. These older cameras seem to produce a likable image for one reason or another.  Even my old Canon 7D video  was more cinematic than my 70D or 80D. In normal shooting conditions, I believe the $300 camera would produce an image just as pleasing as a $2,000 setup. It would kind of be like comparing a GTI to a Ferrari. Sure in many conditions a Ferrari will burn the GTI, but if you were to race down a tight Mountain Road, the GTI would hold its own. Also, if you are taking into account cost verse performance, this combination would be hard to beat.

That link you provided was excellent. At the higher ISO's the other cameras were better, but when I typed in raw at 100 ISO, there was very little difference if any. That comparison would be cool to watch on a big screen for comparison.

photojunky

Thanks again for that link. I am having a good time with it. I am about to get the LumixThanks again for that link. I am having a good time with it. I am about to get the Lumix G9 so I compared it to a couple of other cameras I want and have owned. Surprisingly the 5D looked pretty good but it's image in the comp was smaller.                                                                       

Jules Tohpipi

Interestingly, using the DPR tool, setting at ISO 3200, then if you select RAW (as photojunky has done above) the differences are not big. I was comparing Canon 5D/Canon 5D3/Sony A7III/Fujifilm X100S. However, set it to JPEG and the differences become night-and-day and the Sony is the clear winner. But based on the RAWs the old Canon puts in a more than credible performance at ISO 3200, and certainly streets ahead of any of the Sony RX100 1-inch models.

photojunky

The only reason I think people should shoot jpeg is for snapshots, or if you are a teenage girl like my daughter who takes hundreds of thousands of shots that will only take up room in your computer. In jpeg you can also get more shots per second, but I rarely shoot action. I always shoot in raw because I am always hoping to get that one good quality enlargement worthy image, and you can always convert to jpg later on if needed.

photojunky

Also keep in mind I did this test with a lens that can be found on eBay for just over $50 used. I wonder if I shot with some real glass if the results would have been noticeably better.