Brand new T3 for $450 or old used 5D for $900?

[777funk]

I have always wanted to switch to Canon based on shots I'd seen. I always have felt I liked the colors and smoothness of the photo appearance.

I finally tried a T3 (just to see what I thought) and it's not bad. It gave me the Canon look I'm after. I prefer it over my Nikon straight out of the camera in RAW on the same shots. But would I be wise to spend another $350-$450 and get an old used 5D with dust on the sensor and a bunch of shutter actuations (maybe 25000)?

If not that is there something good used that would be better than the T3 for around $500?

 

[donbga]

But would I be wise to spend another $350-$450

More than what? How much? Please quote absolute figures.

If not that is there something good used that would be better than the T3 for around $500?

Probably not much of anything, but what are you looking to accomplish? If you like a T3 then buy one.

My 2 cents ...

 

[777funk]

More than what? How much? Please quote absolute figures.



Probably not much of anything, but what are you looking to accomplish? If you like a T3 then buy one.

My 2 cents ...

I had thought I had made the pricing options clear enough in the original post. Sorry if I didn't anyways here that is again:
T3 (entry level Canon brand new) - $450 without lens
5D (Pro level Canon old and well used) - $350-$450 more than the T3 at $800-$900 used

I would think the old 5D would give better Image Quality than the T3. But as a first try for Canon (only used Nikon so far) I like the color and character of the T3 (only Canon DSLR I've actually used myself) better than my D40.

That's why I'm asking.

The 5D is a 5+ year old model. The T3 is brand new.

Are there advantages (beyond the one possibly having substantial wear) that a newer camera would have over the old 5D? I'm only concerned with IQ (not options).

to quote myself:
... Is there something good used that would be better than the T3 for around $500?

i.e. I can find 10D's for $150-200 and 20D's for $250 and probably bodies a few steps higher up for $500 used vs that price new for today's entry level Canon DSLR.

 

[donbga]

I had thought I had made the pricing options clear enough in the original post. Sorry if I didn't anyways here that is again:
T3 (entry level Canon brand new) - $450 without lens
5D (Pro level Canon old and well used) - $350-$450 more than the T3 at $800-$900 used

I would think the old 5D would give better Image Quality than the T3. But as a first try for Canon (only used Nikon so far) I like the color and character of the T3 (only Canon DSLR I've actually used myself) better than my D40.

That's why I'm asking.

The 5D is a 5+ year old model. The T3 is brand new.

Are there advantages (beyond the one possibly having substantial wear) that a newer camera would have over the old 5D?

The 5D is a great camera and there is now doubt is probably a better body than the T3, though the T3 has received good marks for it's image quality. Unless you know the provenance of the 5D then you are essentially buying a pig in a poke. The 5D has a reputation for having problems with the reflex mirror falling off and a tendency to have the sensor get dirty, hard to clean, and easily scratched. Not to mention it's sensitivity to humidity causing the camera electronics to fail pre-maturely, not to mention the weird color problems with the LCD.

All things said I would purchase a 5D over the T3 if I could get at least a 90 day warranty on defects and purchase it for $K or less. KEH.com lists the 5D @$1299 which I think maybe reasonable since the camera has an EX rating. However for $700 more you can purchase a refurbbed 5DMKII directly from Canon.

Sorry I missed your figures in the subject title.

 

[777funk]

The 5D is a great camera and there is now doubt is probably a better body than the T3, though the T3 has received good marks for it's image quality. Unless you know the provenance of the 5D then you are essentially buying a pig in a poke. The 5D has a reputation for having problems with the reflex mirror falling off and a tendency to have the sensor get dirty, hard to clean, and easily scratched. Not to mention it's sensitivity to humidity causing the camera electronics to fail pre-maturely, not to mention the weird color problems with the LCD.

All things said I would purchase a 5D over the T3 if I could get at least a 90 day warranty on defects and purchase it for $K or less. KEH.com lists the 5D @$1299 which I think maybe reasonable since the camera has an EX rating. However for $700 more you can purchase a refurbbed 5DMKII directly from Canon.

Sorry I missed your figures in the subject title.

That's kind of what I was thinking. I'm a little worried to spend x amount of dollars on something that's known to have issues. I really would like to get the mkii.

Also no sweat. A lot of times a poster forgets important details (I'm no exception). But for once I didn't lol!

 

[pschwart]

Who can say without knowing your intended use/requirements? Image quality may not be the deciding factor. Other issues: low light performance, built-in flash, size/weight, video capability, build quality, dedicated controls, .... Full-coverage lenses will perform better on APS-C cameras if you can live with the crop factor. If you just plain want a 5D, get one, but only you can decide if this will actually benefit your images.

I have always wanted to switch to Canon based on shots I'd seen. I always have felt I liked the colors and smoothness of the photo appearance.

I finally tried a T3 (just to see what I thought) and it's not bad. It gave me the Canon look I'm after. I prefer it over my Nikon straight out of the camera in RAW on the same shots. But would I be wise to spend another $350-$450 and get an old used 5D with dust on the sensor and a bunch of shutter actuations (maybe 25000)?

If not that is there something good used that would be better than the T3 for around $500?

 

[777funk]

After another test shoot in JPEG mode today, I think I found that MY (personal preference) problem wasn't so much with the camera but with the settings. In RAW mode I liked the way the Canon looked better. But then I shot with JPEG and my settings on the Nikon (sharpening and vivid and sRGB) and I felt the Nikon whooped the Canon.

So maybe it's just knowing the camera and making it do what I want it to do.

Live and learn!