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)…
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.