Is a more expensive camera worth it?

[Grant Privett]

For some time, I’ve been imaging using an entry level DSLR. It takes nice pictures, but has left me wondering how much better its more expensive counterparts are. So, recently, I borrowed a Canon 70D from a friend and pitted my humble Canon 1100D against it to see if the 3:1 price ratio was anything like justified.

I used both cameras on the same chunk of sky, with the same lens, taking 2 images 5 minutes apart with the f ratio, exposure and ISO set identically. The results were linearly scaled and are attached. No prizes for guessing which camera was which – nor for identifying the constellation – but the improvement is significant.

Now, has anyone got a 70D they could pit against something like a Canon 5D MkIII – a lovely bit of kit which costs more than my current car (though that’s not saying that much)…

Attachments:

1. 

   2018-10-26-1229UT-CJD-c.jpg
   

2. 

   canon-comp2.jpg
   

3. 

   canon-comp1.jpg
   

[David Dunn]

Grant,

I think it all depends. I note the 1100D is an oldish camera and as such will have an inferior sensor when compared to newer models.

I moved from a Nikon D80 to a D7200 and was amazed at the improvement. Even though they were in similar niches in the market. As far as I can see, it is the noise performance which seems to drive the overall results.

What would be interesting would be to compare 2 of the latest models from the top and bottom of the market.

The key functions I use, in my wide field work, are live view, the intervalometer and a low noise sensor.

Regards

David

[Grant Privett]

Take your point. 1100 announced 2011. The 70D in 2013.

Also agree that the handling of noise is important. The later Canon DIGICs do seem better at that.

Anyone out there with new and shiny cameras willing to try the same thing and share the results?

[Author]

Posts