60D+decent glass vs 5D MkII+kit lens

D

DG_

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys!

New to the forum. Just wanted to ask some opinions.

I can take a snap. I'm no expert but I've had some shots published using a 400D and a Tamron macro lens - moving stuff, RAW files but very minimal editing. I am not a photographer but I work regularly alongside photographers. I have already asked their opinions and they diasgree! I don't plan on keeping the 400 or the Tamron lens. I'm struggling with the FF vs crop thing.

I would like to do two things:
- Make short HD videos of cars
- Take still images of cars good enough to be published on a Double Page Spread

I know it's not all about the equipment, so assuming I can get myself to a decent technical level which is best for me?:

- 60D + decent lenses (Any L glass I can source cheap or good value quality such as the 35mm 1.4 Samyang, etc.)
- 5D MkII + cheaper lenses

Lens-wise I am thinking along the lines of a decent 35mm/50mm prime, a zoom and a Macro. That's probably it. Although I'm open to suggestions?

I would be shooting RAW format at all times.

I am going to struggle to buy either setup but would like to make the commitment. I would be considering making further investment in the future, just not right now. The stills and video would both be high performance cars in and around tracks. So some panning/tracking, along with exterior 3/4 shots, interior shots, close-up details, etc.

Apologies for the noob question. I did search but my questions is specific to these two bodies as I have found them at suitable prices.

Any guidance much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Not a Canon man so don't know anything about them other than that the 5D is FF while the 60D is a crop body.

It really sort of depends on whether your interests lie more in wide angles (your choice of lenses sort of indicates this to be the case) or longer lens stuff. One of my reasons for going full frame was to lose the crop factor - I came up from the land of film (35mm) and while the extra apparent reach on crops was handy for telephoto stuff, I found myself always wanting something wider at the short end. I already had a 12-24 so couldn't go any wider (bear in mind that I was also still using film at this point, so needed FF lenses) apart from a fisheye (which I also have) so FF was the only answer. Having invested in a reasonable amount of Nikon kit, the obvious choice was a D700 - not one open to you, you seem to be set on Canon, besides, D700s are only now available 2nd hand.

Of the 2, my choice would be the 5D II and maybe one lens for now - you can always get more as and when funds allow. With the 5D III and 6D's recent releases (considered a 6D?), people may well be upgrading, leaving an almost glut od 5D IIs on the 2nd hand shelves, with the consequent price drops, maybe?

Happy shopping and I hope you'll be happy with whatever you end up with.

Nod.
 
I don't see a whole lot of reason to go full frame for what you are shooting. The crop factor is not a factor for getting wide shots and either is the reach on full frame. Just match the right lens and your good to go. If it comes down to it I would spend the money on the glass instead of the body. This is coming to you from a guy that has a 600D with 70-200 2.8 mark2 and 17-55 2.8. My money is in the glass.
 
Sorry to disagree, Shayne but the difference between the FoV from Dx to Fx at wide angles is huge! My recent shoot (as posted for C&C in the architecture section) would simply not have been possible with Dx - it was hardly easy (given the contractor's fencing) with Fx!

Extra apparent reach from Dx compared to Fx can be replicated with a 1.4x telecon - not so easy to get wider and keep IQ.

The chap I bought my fisheye off was a working pro who (as discussed in another thread) had bought it as a backup used his fisheye for (among other things) car interiors. Not still got the link to his examples but they included stitched 360degree videos of them - very effective. Even my 12-24 at the wide end would struggle to get the full width of a dash in even with the seats right back, shooting between the head rests.

I would agree that as a rule, more quality comes from better glass than from more expensive bodies BUT stand by my comments about the FoV differences between the 2 formats. A cheap way into FF could be a film body (cheap as chips these days, although they will be 2nd hand) and a scanner. Plenty of flatbeds offer neg and slide scanning options and can turn in some very good results.
 
60D + Samyang 8mm + Canon 17-55mm

Full frame is lovely but when you add up the cost of say a Sigma 12-24mm and a 24-70mm it does cost a huge amount more.
 
True but DG (the OP) has listed a 5D II as one of his options. 2nd hand 3rd party lenses won't break the bank - I'm afraid we all have to accept that photography can't really be done on the cheap, although costs can be cut by shopping wisely and/or second hand. My 24-70 f/2.8 came brand new (and sealed box until I asked for it to be opened so I could test the lens) from Jessops for £234.66 (IIRC) a few years ago - less than I could probably get for it now. The 12-24 was rather more, I'll admit but still a lot less than the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8.
 
What about the 7D? eighty quid off cashback now and maybe a good compromise between the two
 
I stuck with my 1000D for two years and bought a few L Series lenses before upgrading to a 5D MKII this month. I'm pleased I did things that way!
 
Thanks guys,

Yeah this is pretty much the mixed response I've had! haha.

Re 7D: I would consider it. I selected the 60D purely because I have found the 650D cheaper and it has a flip-out screen. I'm open to an arguement for the 7D over the 650D although if I was trying to find that extra couple of hunder pounds I'd probably try and find the extra from there to buy a 5D MkII.

I've found video people say lens first, photographers say body first. But then some photographers say lens first because you will keep hold of lenses but always update the body.

Aaaarghhhh!
:bonk:
 
DG_ said:
Thanks guys,

Yeah this is pretty much the mixed response I've had! haha.

Re 7D: I would consider it. I selected the 60D purely because I have found the 650D cheaper and it has a flip-out screen. I'm open to an arguement for the 7D over the 650D although if I was trying to find that extra couple of hunder pounds I'd probably try and find the extra from there to buy a 5D MkII.

I've found video people say lens first, photographers say body first. But then some photographers say lens first because you will keep hold of lenses but always update the body.

Aaaarghhhh!
:bonk:
Click to expand...

Hmm

I think lens first applies to both video & photo people just with video you can get the exact same results using a 550D than you would a 7D. The upgrades you get with the 7D over the 550D are good photographically but there are none video wise.

Full frame is a different kettle of fish though, if you need the use of high ISO's its worth thinking about...
 
Thanks.

I meant 60D above by the way, no idea why I put 650D? Too much reading, too many numbers and figures in my head at the moment!

Thanks for that. Makes sense of things. I think I'm leaning towards 60D plus decent lenses for the following reasons:

- If I had to chose, I would say video is marginally more important to me at the moment.
- I think Nod is right, the 'correct' way to go would be the FF route. Low ISO performance would be an advantage, but ultimately I have to admit I just can't afford it at the moment.

I figure if I get a two or three good lenses (Thanks for the suggestions above by the way, GeForce Junky in particular), then that equipment will still outweigh my technical ability for the moment. And as Shaylou says, will still allow me to get 'good enough' results for the time being.

I can imagine that it isn't unusual for people with money to assume that expensive equipment automatically buys excellent results. I want to avoid (and couldn't afford to anyway), fall into that trap.
 
I cheap a lens are you talking about if you go with the 5d? you could look for a sigma 24-70 used. New price is £550 and its a great lens. If you have the budget for it along with the 5d2 i would go for this. You can upgrade in the future and get your money back when seling the lens if you buy it used.
 
Last edited:
Since FF is likely to be your ultimate goal, I would seriously suggest that you avoid buying any crop only lenses. I'm a Nikon user myself so not 100% sure of Canon's nomenclature for their small sensor lenses, although EF-S rings a bell. A possible exception to this would be a Sigma 10-20 if you want a UWA lens - the FF 12-24 (a good copy of that is superb, with almost no rectilinear distortion [curved lines near edges] at all. Not cheap though. IIRC, it's among the widest zooms available for FF) will probably be beyond budget.

If the OP wants a cheap way into FF, I would suggest a 35mm film EOS. Even fairly high end bodies are relatively affordable and D&P isn't too pricy - for £8, Boots will D&P a 24 (27) exposure film and put the results on a CD; you can get a lot of camera and D&P for the price of a 5D!
 
Nod said:
Sorry to disagree, Shayne but the difference between the FoV from Dx to Fx at wide angles is huge! My recent shoot (as posted for C&C in the architecture section) would simply not have been possible with Dx - it was hardly easy (given the contractor's fencing) with Fx!

Extra apparent reach from Dx compared to Fx can be replicated with a 1.4x telecon - not so easy to get wider and keep IQ.

The chap I bought my fisheye off was a working pro who (as discussed in another thread) had bought it as a backup used his fisheye for (among other things) car interiors. Not still got the link to his examples but they included stitched 360degree videos of them - very effective. Even my 12-24 at the wide end would struggle to get the full width of a dash in even with the seats right back, shooting between the head rests.

I would agree that as a rule, more quality comes from better glass than from more expensive bodies BUT stand by my comments about the FoV differences between the 2 formats. A cheap way into FF could be a film body (cheap as chips these days, although they will be 2nd hand) and a scanner. Plenty of flatbeds offer neg and slide scanning options and can turn in some very good results.
Click to expand...

I understand the fov difference is huge but the post said cars with no mention of interiors. I suppose that could be part of it but was not stated. I use a 17-55 on 1.6 crop for cars all of the time and it works well. If wider was needed there is always the 8-15L but that's extreme. Point is if they go with crop or ff there will be a lens to compensate for the fov. With that in mind and no need for low light the crop would work and the money saved could be put towards really good glass that ultimately will put out a better pic then cheap glass on any body ff or crop.
 
I think the argument here is FF or another crop camera, if you are considering the 5d FF it is best to make your move to ff early rather than continue down the crop route if you intend to upgrade your current lenses
Your choice will be dictated by your budget
 
Last edited:
shaylou said:
I understand the fov difference is huge but the post said cars with no mention of interiors. I suppose that could be part of it but was not stated.
Click to expand...

From post #1...

along with exterior 3/4 shots, interior shots, close-up details, etc.

(3rd paragraph up from the bottom)
 
5D mk2 without a question. There is something magical about the full frame shots, it just feels right if you, like me, come from 35mm film. Everything on crop feels wrong.

For lenses, 50mm 1.8, 17-40mm f4L and save up a bit for a 200mm tele in the future.

It's not about which to get first, it's about getting your foot in a system. There is little point investing in crop lenses if you will end up in full frame. And only rectilinear wide angle for crop sensors are crop only.
 
I would go with the FF Canon 5D Mk II alot less picture noise and better quality. I've gone from a 60D to a 5D MkIII the quality is superb with FF.
 
Hotshots said:
I would go with the FF Canon 5D Mk II alot less picture noise and better quality. I've gone from a 60D to a 5D MkIII the quality is superb with FF.
Click to expand...

not quite a fair comparison 60d to 5d mk3
the 5d mk3 is significantly better that the 5d mk2 and significantly dearer

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II-vs-Canon_EOS_60D

personally I have always avoided the 5d mk2 because of it's focus system
the 60d has a significantly better focusing system than the 5d mk2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top