What's the best camera for around $300? I was considering the Canon EOS, is there anything better?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2900 Image Height 2114
D40
Technology is neat
nikon d5
>>2834703
nailed it
>>2834647
Used 5D mark 1
Pentax k50
EOS 700D
D 3300
>>2834730
also, if you dont mind shitty controls - then this is a genius . 300$ Full Frame, nothing can beat that
>>2834841
Except a current $300 aps-c...
>>2834841
with fucking garbage dynamic range
im using an omd em5 and it performs better than the 5d mk2 i borrowed for a few months
>>2834955
dynamic range, menu system, low light capabilities, autofocus...
>>2834845
= 12 megapixel full frame is just as sharp or even sharper then absolute best interchangeable lens aps-c you can get for 300$(which is 24 megapixels).
= 5D classic has the same or even a bit better high ISO performance in RAW compared to modern 300$ aps-c.(don't forget ISO 1600 is actually closer to 1000 on some modern cameras, manufacturers lied a bit less back when 5D was made)
? Its much bigger then a mirrorless camera you can get for 300$. This can be good or bad depending on your needs.
+ The build quality is a bit better then current aps-c camera for 300$
+5D has more physical controls then what you can get with modern aps-c for 300$
+ You get a few more advanced functions then on most current 300$ aps-c cameras(like wider bracketing scale, a tad faster shutter speed, mirror lock up).
+ + Full frame viewfinder is MUCH bigger and better then what you get in APS-C. This is a big advantage. (If you plan to use manual focus lenses, consider buying a cheap chinese split-circle focusing screen)
+ + + Legacy glass works much better on full frame. It gives sharper images and bigger FOV then aps-c(having in mind that OP wants to spend 300$ on a camera i bet he does not have much to spend on lenses, so this is a huge advantage)
- It lacks some functions that are now common in low end modern dslrs like auto ISO, auto HDR, hideous filters...(this last thing is hardly a flaw)
- LCD screen is worse on 5D (lower res and less bright) then what you can get on a current aps-c
- Menu is worse and harder to navigate on 5D then on modern aps-c
- You can get more FPS on a 300$ aps-c then 5D. Huge dissadvantage if you shoot action, but irrelevant for everything else.
- - a bit slower autofocus then what you can get on a 300$ aps-c(although not so for a current one, because best in this aspect will also be a bit older camera).
tldr: Ancient full frame is still better then modern aps-c for everything except action, wildlife, and being easy to carry around.
>>2834647
Nikon f3
>>2834958
If you'd like to compare every single spec against a D3300, you may be very disappointed in the capabilities of your 2006 1st generation camera.
>>2834963
Unlike legacy glass compatibility, huge viewfinder, and physical controls most of those specs are irrelevant. Some are even outright misleading (compare 12 megapixel 5D image of a grassy field to the same photo made with your 24 megapixel Nikon and you will see what i'm talking about).
>>2834955
5d mk2 dynamic range is just slightly better then mk1. They are pretty similar in that regard.
Also the best current sensor you can get for 300$ will be less then 2 stops better then 5D classic.
>>2834970
>compare 12 megapixel 5D image of a grassy field to the same photo made with your 24 megapixel Nikon and you will see what i'm talking about).
You're welcome to back that statement up with any sort of evidence
>>2834979
ISO 3200 is the 5D's "H" mode (since it maxes out at 1600 natively) and looks quite noisy. 12mp also doesn't provide nearly as much space to down-size to smooth out noise (or to give back detail from noise reduction)
>>2835002
He was talking about Mark 2.
>>2835001
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-40mm-F28-STM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D__176
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-DX-Micro-NIKKOR-40mm-F28G-mounted-on-Nikon-D3200__801
>>2835016
>2005 body vs 2012 body
simply epic
>>2835016
>lens costs over 50% more
>only marginal performance difference
>>2835016
So you don't have, like, a photo...
>>2835033
Why do you need a photo? This website is quoted constantly as irrefutable proof here when people (rightfully) make fun of Canon sensors.
If i did have any comparisons, i'm sure 5D would even look a bit sharper then 24 megapixel aps-c Nikon because i would be using very cheap lenses and because Bayer type sensor favors bigger photosites when resolving fine details of a landscape, like grass and tree branches in the distance.
>>2835064
>sensors are all that matters
>autofocus???? what is that???
>framerate???? never heard of it
>lens selection and value? what the fuck is a lens?
>>2835089
The canon 5D is fucking ELEVEN years old, why the fuck are you using it as a comparison for anything except the poorest of poorfags?
oh my god this OP wants a fucking camera for 300$
just buy a smartphone, this is not the hobby for you
>>2835090
If you bothered to read the first post of the thread you would know why...
Its a valid option in that price range.
>>2835096
yeah i read the op and reacted as such
>>2835091
>300$ body
>valid
>>2835091
>>2835098
Both of you are idiots. People used those cameras to make great photos a decade ago. They can still be used to make great photos now. Some photographers managed to create good photos even with a 300D, but that's not all.
Right now for 300$ you can buy a camera that produces technically amazing digital photos(and im not talking about 5D). For this amount of money you can also buy a large format analogue camera with a lens.
>>2835115
flynn effect lad
everything that used to be good, is in objective fact, shit garbage bad today
just like the average height in the past is nano-manlet tier today
>>2835118
>everything that used to be good, is in objective fact, shit garbage bad today
I feel sorry for you if you actually think that.
>>2835123
sorry that you're part of the 90% of sturgeon's law anon
>>2834647
Used Pentax K-50 with WR kit lens from ebay.
I got a Nikon d70 for under a hundred dollars in euroshekel equivalent, and an 18-70 for the same, m8 it ain't that hard, and now I got a d300 for a bit more
>>2835269
D300S is better. At least you can use somewhat modern memory cards with it.
>>2834703
/thread
>>2835118
isn't the flynn effect about how we are smarter today? so if that's true it doesn't mean that things are shittier today, only that our standards have increased (so things are objectively the same or better).
>>2835091
>>2835098
>>2835118
>>2835125
you can buy an old canon sureshot for a $1.99 at a thrift store and make an award winning set of images. you can do it with anything, even pic related. People on this board have become so delusional, everyone is more absorbed with the gear threads than they are with critique and getting better.
this is why i hate coming back to /p/, idk why I keep doing it.
>>2835989
thats because critique threads are nothing but a bunch of uncreative shitfucks that simply call every picture garbage for arbitrary reasons
>>2836063
git gud lad, nobody cares about your bad, missed focus blurry bad composition uninterested subject garbage
>>2836139
Critique on photos is completely subjective. Many a good photo has been shot down in critique threads because filmfags that have been taking photos for 25 years film intimidated when a newfag who's had his Canon 600D for 2 months can take good if not better photos.
Yes, critique threads can help with the basics like composition and exposure, but half the time it's an arrogant cunt calling alright photos pathetic.
>>2834647
eos m.
epl6.
nex5r
nex5t
nex6
can't recommend
xe1
>>2836063
That's because most of the photos posted in critique threads are the bottom of the barrel third day with a camera snapshots of nothing at all. Those photos piss off everyone who actually wants to give critique enough that they leave the thread, leaving only the few new posters hoping to see their photos get critique. So your photos are being critiqued by people who have no idea what they're doing, since everyone else abandoned the thread.
Post a thread full of your own well composed, well exposed, well processed photos, however, and you get:
>>2825227
Nikon F5
