Canon has cameras for all sorts of people- cheapskates, photography aficionados, the middle-class consumer...and so on. Some could go as low as $200, while there would be those that would leave a $5000 dent in your bank account. But a more expensive camera could only mean that it takes crisper and better pictures than its cheaper brothers, right?

Well, judging from these pictures, that seems to be not the case. Photography aficionado, J. Vincent, decided to conduct a little experiment to see if the more costly and feature-packed Canon camera is really better at capturing objects and moments than the less expensive ones.

So what he did was he took pictures of a hot tub (sans the people, so don't overstimulate your imagination!) in various techniques. The two cameras that will be compared are the Canon S3 which has a $420-$480 price tag, and the Canon 5D which could cost you $3200 bucks without the lens and $4600 if you'd equip it with 100-400mm IS lens.

The results, well, see for yourself. If you ask me, I don't see much of a difference. Big waste of Benjamins? Well, let's hope not, for the sake of the consumers. To better compare the two Canon contraptions, the pictures from both cameras were  resized to 1280 pixels wide (which is common for emails and HD viewing), and 960 pixels tall. There were also full size crops from each camera and the pictures were also detailed at 300%. Go ahead and judge the pics and tell us your piece of mind.