>>3531901you're welcome, in high res too
>>3531981I haven't had a 5D in years but it was a good camera as long as you stayed below 800 ISO
there's nothing wrong with an older FF, my Df is now 5 years old and still regularly BTFOs 99% of the cameras /p/ uses but something as old as a 5D Classic, from 2005, they have much bigger issues to worry about by now other than image quality. Good luck getting it serviced as Canon has to be running out of parts by now. The sensor has to be manually cleaned and they are gluttons for dust. You'll get perfectly usable images out of it, especially with decent lenses, but they are like shooting slide film because you don't have a lot of exposure latitude without turning the shadows into a bowl of Fruit Loops from the sensor banding.
if you are set on a FF Canon, probably a 5D3 or something from that era. They do video pretty well too. For Nikon, the choice is obvious if you don't care about video and Dfs are cheap now compared to when I bought mine. You're basically getting a Nikon D4 for D7200 prices with D7200 AF and is 100% compatible with literally every single Nikon lens made since Sputnik launched from the Soviet Union. There's a lot of shit on new DSLRs you really don't need unless you're either a pro or a gearfag.
Anymore past 2014, it doesn't really matter what camera you get, you're going to get good images from it as long as you don't suck, except for Canon APS-C because apparently judging from those images they are still stuck in 2010 with their 60D levels of image quality lel. Get some faster lenses if you're going to do low light.
>>3531958I'll say it again.
A 4x5 400 ISO negative is going to have the same exposure as an APS-C sensor at 400 ISO and the ability to gather light is determined by the maximum aperture of the lens in front of it.
See me after class.
