Best image quality in a Canon body for under £400

scottduffy

scottduffy

Messages
3,348
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Folks,

I am just selling up my micro 4/3rds gear and moving to Canon again as i can't get used to the small size. I keep getting rid of my DSLR's due to them not being used often enough so i'm going to hold off for a wee while and choose a body carefully then pair it with one decent lens and go from there. My last 3 Canon bodies have been 50d's and i was thinking i would purchase another but having not had time to research the other bodies that have been released in the last 3 or 4 years i was wondering if maybe any of the entry level bodies have exceeded the image quality of the 50d? My other option was to purchase a 5d classic as i know it will provide very good image quality. I don't shoot anything particularly fast moving just really my son and i was thinking that the 5d classic paired with say the 70-200f4L would give me very nice results. I've always liked the lens on the 50d although it was at times a bit long but without the 1.6x crop it could be ideal. Any thoughts?
 
If it were me, I'd go for a 5D. I think they are astounding value in the IQ department. They have drawbacks of course (what camera body doesn't?), but for £300 ish, in my opinion, you won't get better.
 
Yep 5D all the way for your needs I think.

The 70-200 would work well with it - I'm amazed at mine on full frame - it's a totally different lens compared to when used on a crop, almost a walkabout at times! :)
 
Reiterating what others have said, but 5D all the way for that price bracket!
 
Thanks folks. I really like the 50d but i think the 70-200 seems a bit long at times on it but on the 5d it should be spot on.
 
Yep the 5D's a nice combo with the 70-200 f4 and sounds like a good match for you. I recently picked up a 50D as well as it's better suited for wildlife.
I'd skip the 60D as it has a few downgrades from the 50D.
 
saw in interesting video where they pitted a 5dmkiii v a 600D.. used a standard lens on the 5d and an L series Lens on the 600.. other than the obvious faster speeds for continuous shooting the results were pretty much in favour for most of the standard style shooting for the 600D simply because of having the quality glass on it.
camera bodies are 10 a penny in that respect and if you were to look at the lowest priced aps-c to the highest priced one it would pretty much always boil down to the glass in front of it.
sure there may be a few fine tune small differences in terms of image size, higher ISO and faster continuous shooting but the bigger difference in quality will always rest with the glass.
i use a 60D now and apart from obviously being an APS-C sensor it fairs no better over the Oh's 1000D 99% of the time when paired with some L glass.

so in that respect the older 5D when paired with the quality L lens though slower should still give outstanding results on a par if not better than a newer camera using standard lens
 
Thats interesting Dean,as a beginner I was always chasing bodies thinking they were the most important but have since become more discerning,
thanks for that
 
dean messenger said:
Ah here ya go Chris
this should give ya thought for food on it.
Click to expand...
Seen this video before, but I still wet myself when the flash comes off the camera, loL!
 
yeah he can be a bit of a twit at times and annoying but aside from the comical aspect digital Rev do some good reviews and it does remain pretty impartial with them.
love the custom lens hood too lol
 
Just noticed there are 7d's selling for around this price. I have no experience with these at all but have heard good things about them when paired with good glass like the 17-55 is. Another one to have a think about.
 
indeed the latest digic 5 sensors over the older digic 2 ( which is in the 5d mk1 ) are probably actually far better in terms of noise and performance and in reality the 5d only stands up on its own due to being FF and affordable.
In its day it was number one but now age and technogology have moved on considerably.
Its still a great camera but dont expect miracles with one
 
My answer to the original question would be 5D followed by 40D, not overly impressed with the newer 15mp or 18mp sensors
 
I always liked the 50d results especially when paired with good glass but i don't like the crop as i take mostly portrait pictures and just feel for what i use it for the 5dmk1 or the 1dsmk2 would be an improvement. Just moved on my micro 4/3rds gear so now it's time to start looking and hoping i good a good example of one or the other.
 
I just looked back at some pictures i took 3 years ago on a trip to New York where i used the 350d (yep you heard me right) and the 70-200 f4L and some of the photos are amazing. I'm really wondering whether to bother with the older full frame camera now or just go for another 50d or something similar as my son is pretty small (2 years old) so i even at the 70mm end on a crop sensor he won't fill the frame from a few feet away. Decisions decisions.
 
dean messenger said:
indeed the latest digic 5 sensors over the older digic 2 ( which is in the 5d mk1 ) are probably actually far better in terms of noise and performance and in reality the 5d only stands up on its own due to being FF and affordable.
In its day it was number one but now age and technogology have moved on considerably.
Its still a great camera but dont expect miracles with one
Click to expand...

This *might* ring true if shooting JPG only (where the processor makes a difference), but the 5D really does produce much cleaner images than the 7D in RAW.
 
its the not just the processor but the sensor also. the technology in the sensor has vastly improved and add to that with an older camera youve no idea what its been through and what the sensor has been exposed to.
Add to that the 7D is APS-C so hardly a fair comparison . maybe compare the 5d to 5d mk ii or to a 6D for a fairer comparsion.
as for the processor also the newer ones are actually far better when shooting RAW as they quite simply process the information much quicker ( which is not a bg deal with jpeg as jpeg file sizes SOOC havent altered as much as RAW file sizes have ) so to say the processor only makes a difference when shooting jpeg is in fact totally incorrect.
 
Coyon said:
Dean that's kinda confusing buddy?!
Click to expand...
not really.. in theory the older camera when combined with quality glass will give outstanding results.. BUT in reality you have to be careful when buying any older camera and if possible be able to test it first to ensure it has not been abused and that the actuation count is not excessive or that the sensor hasnt been abused or exposed to extreme light for instance creating hotspots, or is filthy dirty and covered in dust bunnies or worse mould.
doesnt matter how good a quality the camera may be at the time of release if its not been properly looked after then theres a risk you end up with a duffer.
you will always find good and bad cameras out there and the older the camera the higher the risk.
 
I believe the 5D also has a weaker low pass filter than the newer cameras mentioned here. That would make a difference to image quality, daresay only 12mp on a ff sensor helps too
 
The problem Andrew is that you really have no idea of the mileage on a 5d due to not being able to check the shutter count.
 
dean messenger said:
its the not just the processor but the sensor also. the technology in the sensor has vastly improved and add to that with an older camera youve no idea what its been through and what the sensor has been exposed to.
Add to that the 7D is APS-C so hardly a fair comparison . maybe compare the 5d to 5d mk ii or to a 6D for a fairer comparsion.
as for the processor also the newer ones are actually far better when shooting RAW as they quite simply process the information much quicker ( which is not a bg deal with jpeg as jpeg file sizes SOOC havent altered as much as RAW file sizes have ) so to say the processor only makes a difference when shooting jpeg is in fact totally incorrect.
Click to expand...

Don't mean to sound rude, but have you ever used a 5D? The processor rattles through images very quickly (they're only 12MP after all) :)

My point about the processor was that the newer ones are able to deal with noise a little more effectively (in JPG).
 
scottduffy said:
I always liked the 50d results especially when paired with good glass but i don't like the crop as i take mostly portrait pictures and just feel for what i use it for the 5dmk1 or the 1dsmk2 would be an improvement. Just moved on my micro 4/3rds gear so now it's time to start looking and hoping i good a good example of one or the other.
Click to expand...
Im a 50d man and just recently matched it up with a 70-200 f4 something I wish I had done yonks ago. For me its a perfect non bank busting set up!
 
dean messenger said:
its the not just the processor but the sensor also. the technology in the sensor has vastly improved and add to that with an older camera youve no idea what its been through and what the sensor has been exposed to.
Add to that the 7D is APS-C so hardly a fair comparison . maybe compare the 5d to 5d mk ii or to a 6D for a fairer comparsion.
as for the processor also the newer ones are actually far better when shooting RAW as they quite simply process the information much quicker ( which is not a bg deal with jpeg as jpeg file sizes SOOC havent altered as much as RAW file sizes have ) so to say the processor only makes a difference when shooting jpeg is in fact totally incorrect.
Click to expand...
The 5dmk1 and 6d aren't really comparable either, especially at higher ISO's.
 
scottduffy said:
I always liked the 50d results especially when paired with good glass but i don't like the crop as i take mostly portrait pictures and just feel for what i use it for the 5dmk1 or the 1dsmk2 would be an improvement. Just moved on my micro 4/3rds gear so now it's time to start looking and hoping i good a good example of one or the other.
Click to expand...

You'll want to throw 50D right in the bin (read: list in classifieds :) ) once you see* the results from the old full frames. That is certainly the way I felt 4 years ago when I made the switch.

*Decent vision and reasonable colour awareness may be required
 
daugirdas said:
You'll want to throw 50D right in the bin (read: list in classifieds :) ) once you see* the results from the old full frames. That is certainly the way I felt 4 years ago when I made the switch.

*Decent vision and reasonable colour awareness may be required
Click to expand...
Not so. I was disappointed with the IQ of the 5d mk1 in comparison to the 50d when I owned both. The 5d mk1 was lovely at base ISO but not the light and day I expected.

In the end I sold the 5d and bought a 6d, keeping the 50d as back up, it's simply the better all round body IMO.

But if you only shoot at base ISO and nothing particularly fast moving, it might be preferable?
 
Last edited:
Dont get me wrong admittedly in my opinion with the 50d, anything over 800 iso is as grainy as hell but nothing that a bit of photo shop cant fix!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top