canon 60d to 5d mark i. am i being stupid.. help

  • Thread starter Thread starter stratocaster72
  • Start date Start date
S

stratocaster72

Guest
Hi all

I have a 60d and love it but want to go ff to get the benefit from my 70 200 L lens and my 50mm, I also feel that there is a certain..... quality from ff pix that I don't seem to have on my 60d (though this might be my imagination lol).
Also I feel my 60d isn't great in low light.... I know its meant to be but I seem to end up on ISO 800 and above when taking indoor pix in decent light (at f4) jut to get an exposure....I can get a 5d for a good price so was thinking it would be a good second camera for ff and might even help in low light at lower ISO.

Any advice most welcome.Thanks

Oh, I don't use live view, video or things like that, which are wasted on me slightly with the 60d
 
Im in the exact same boat. I wanted more from my camera and only ff would do.
I've sold my beloved 40D recently and waiting till wednesday (payday) and I can finally order my 5D3.
I'm not in to using my SLR for video or things like that, but I do use live view from time to tome...
My advice if you've out grown your 60D then that's it...time to move up to ff..a simple but expensive answer..lol
 
Lol, I agree, but unfortunately the 5d3 is way out my price range.... and I'm not sure if the 5d classic is still a worthwhile alternative...
 
I think if you buy the 5D classic hoping for improved noise handling you will find yourself disappointed.

Don't get me wrong, it's good. If you view both the 5D and the 60D images and 1:1 ratio the 5D will probably show lower more pleasing noise. But if you downsize your 60D image to the 5D image size you will see less noise and retain more detail - in pure noise capability the 60D will come out equal.

Now there is 'something' about full frame images that gives them a different look, more depth. I have been looking at a 5D as a backup to my 7D for the same reason. I know that I will not get improved noise but I think with the right lens it would be a great camera to use.
 
I never put much stock in the DxO mark results, I tend to favour real world shooting.

And in my fairly extensive research when I was looking to backup my 7D (Same sensor as 60D) there was no advantage to either side in noise or detail when compared at like for like sizes. Something DxO mark does not appear to take into account.
 
Last edited:
Sold my 7D and bought a 5D recently, once you start thinking full frame might be the way to go, it's probably too late ;) I really wanted a 24-105 L too, and that's a lens that doesn't make so much sense on a crop body. So far, I'm really pleased, the images have a really nice quality. Although its not easy finding a real minter of a 5D nowadays.
 
At least the 7D beats a 5D hands down in high ISO, I rarely go above ISO 640 on the 5D while I happily shoot ISO 1600 on the 7D.

That said, after getting a 5D, the 7D has not seen a lot of use. There is that "something" to those images as you say. Especially with good L primes ;)

FF is expensive but oh so worth it :D
 
I'm a very big fun of 5d Mk1, it has that magic:)....I shoot it very often at iSO 1600 and if the image is well exposed the quality is still very good, both noise wise and also dynamic range. Even 3200 is still good... plus noise reduction in LR3 or 4 is great and can help a lot in many situations. Plus the idea of FF should convince you....
 
I bought a 5D mainly to use a Siggy 85mm f1.4 and 12-24mm on but I ended up mostly using a 50mm f1.4.

I find all ISO's upto and including 3200 to be perfectly useable. Anyway, the 5D is getting me the best pictures I've had from any digital camera.

The downsides are worth living with, I suppose, but I'll list them anyway.

1. It's a big and heavy combination when you put a lens on it.
2. No built in flash.
3. Vignetting, but it's within the range that CS5 will fix.
4. Sensor contamination. Get used to cleaning it, often.
 
Tbh it's not an upgrade, iso wise at least.

I have a 50d and 5d mk1. While I like the low ISO 5d shots, IMO the 50d is better at really high ISO.

The 5d mk1 is also clunky and very slow to use. Compared to the 50d everything (and I mean everything!) feels like its in slow motion!

Save for a mk2 if you can and make it worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
. Double post.
 
As I remember the 50D was pretty much crucified in some reviews so it just goes to show the value of trying things for yourself.

That's the answer, OP, see if you can get hold of a 5D and try it for yourself.
 
woof woof said:
As I remember the 50D was pretty much crucified in some reviews so it just goes to show the value of trying things for yourself.

That's the answer, OP, see if you can get hold of a 5D and try it for yourself.
Click to expand...

Was it? Along with the 7d, one of the very best crop sensor Canon bodies of recent years IMO.

Real world use is often very different to lab based reviews.
 
Last edited:
Indeed and as a happy user of some lenses that others can't find a "good" copy of I tend to agree.

The problem comes when you can't lay your hands on something easily to try it yourself and therefore have to rely on reviews and user feedback before taking a punt on line.
 
Very true.

And one of my pet hates is lab based tests, I hate them with a passion and have no basis in reality.

I'm lucky to have access to quite a lot of bodies and lenses every now and then so I only buy the gear I really like! That's why sometimes I get annoyed with forums when people quote reviews at all and sundry, whilst disregarding people's personal experiences!
 
Also I feel my 60d isn't great in low light.... I know its meant to be but I seem to end up on ISO 800 and above when taking indoor pix in decent light (at f4) jut to get an exposure....I can get a 5d for a good price so was thinking it would be a good second camera for ff and might even help in low light at lower ISO.
Click to expand...
why do you think you will get a different exposure with the 5D
not taking into account the different field of view - lets assume you point the 5D at a lawn and point the 60D at a lawn - the exposure reading should be the same
so F4 1/125th - if needing iso800 on the 60D will still need ISO800 on the 5D - not a lower ISO
sorry if i misunderstood your point on low ISO
 
It's funny because I upgraded from 5DII to a 7D and could not of been happier. Almost every shot taken with the 5DII was out of focus to varying extents, and after 2 weeks of ownership I has to return it. The 7D just nails focus.

In hindsight my 5DII probably had an allignent problem, but it kind of put me off FF. The original 5D is now very long in the tooth, and I find it hard to belive it will come close to a 60D, which is just a slightly hobbled 7D anyway.
 
The 5dI is an Amazing Piece of Kit, makes the images from APS-C cameras look like they were taken on a compact, the extra DoF and general quality of images are miles better. You won’t regret it. I could forgive the dated features for that sensor, and those images!
 
Last edited:
Niall97 said:
The 5dI is an Amazing Piece of Kit, makes the images from APS-C cameras look like they were taken on a compact, the extra DoF and general quality of images are miles better. You won’t regret it. I could forgive the dated features for that sensor, and those images!
Click to expand...

To the op, the 5d1 does NOT make aps-c look like a compact so really take the above with a pinch of salt :)

Extra dof? My 50d with the 50mm f1.8 will give me more dof than my 5d at f/4. it depends entirely how you equip and use it. But let's not start that debate again.

The problem is with the 5d mk1 it's dated sensor isn't anywhere near the quality of other FF bodies IMO and it doesn't warrant a change from a decent modern crop to a slower clunkier FF body that doesn't really have superior iq compared to modern crops. A mk2 or 3 however is a worthwhile upgrade, depending on what you use it for.
 
Last edited:
I will argue with Jim about this all day :)

My 5D is significantly better than my 60D at high ISO shooting in real world conditions. Likewise, it is a lot better than the 500D I had, which has a similar sensor to that of the 50D.

I'm not a massive fan of benchmarks, but I think DXOMark have it spot on with their high ISO scores.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I will argue with Jim about this all day :)

My 5D is significantly better than my 60D at high ISO shooting in real world conditions. Likewise, it is a lot better than the 500D I had, which has a similar sensor to that of the 50D.

I'm not a massive fan of benchmarks, but I think DXOMark have it spot on with their high ISO scores.
Click to expand...

I just can't see it, I wish I could :)

I've made the decision now though to skip the mk2 (which I love!!) and jump to the mk3 later this year - I really do think some modern crops are up there with the mk1 these days. Don't get me wrong though, I do like the mk1 or I wouldn't own one! I use it mainly for portraits where it does have a slight edge, but I don't seem to get that same advantage on my landscapes which disappointed me, as that's really why I sourced one. It could do with a service though...
 
Last edited:
To be fair, most people spouting personal experience on forums do not have access to lots of kit and will often repeat the "lab truths" with a twist of justifying their personal choice.

We're lucky to have a lot of long time togs here who have real breadth of knowledge and understanding how it translates to the real world but that's not what I'm used to on the Internet at large.

Lab numbers tell us something and get way too much press but I think they're useful if you understand the limitations. One of them being that people get stuck on 5-10% differences in dxomark...
 
I've just taken a punt on a nice condition 5D mark I from MPB. I'm looking forward to using some fast primes on it, and I hope I can live with the operating speed - is it *that* slow?
 
grotty said:
I've just taken a punt on a nice condition 5D mark I from MPB. I'm looking forward to using some fast primes on it, and I hope I can live with the operating speed - is it *that* slow?
Click to expand...

It's fine for the most, just not as quick as the 50d!

I'd liken it to an old 400d in operation.
 
Last edited:
I had the same dilemma. I had a 60D and loved it, I just wanted to experiment and try ff but didn't want to make a mistake and sell my beloved 60D.

I ended up buying a 5D classic and although I like the pictures, the interface was so dated compared with the 60D I wasn't keen, but I loved the way my lenses works on it.

I also couldn't believe it didn't have auto ISO and this was a big thing for me. Also I missed the ability to crop on an 18MP camera. 12MP for cropping seems limited, although that's my own ability, or lack of, to frame a shot in the first place :-)

I ended up sellng the 60D and 5Dc and broke the bank and got a 5D mkII and I couldn't be happier.
 
Have recently gone from 40d and 50d to 5DC without a single regret.

True it is a lot slower than the newer generation of cameras and the menu system/lcd screen are pants, but the images are awesome.

They appear a lot sharper than my 50d images and have a special quality too them, i love it!
 
If you get a nice tidy one, I think you'll really like it. I was surprised how snappy AF is, and the menus and button presses all register quickly, i read up a lot on the 5D before selling the 7D, and was expecting it to be a real step down for any kind of action shots. Took mine to Duxford airshow a few weeks ago, tracked really well, even through a TC. Only thing I wish for is sensor cleaning!
 
Sounds encouraging, I'm looking forward to trying the 135 f2 on it and hoping to source a wider fast prime or two, too :).
 
Interesting debate. I'm currently shooting with a 40d and look on longingly at the 5d's with intent, unsure if I part X'd my 40d I'd be making a mistake or not! :shrug:
 
Well I've spent an hour in controlled conditions tonight shooting the two cameras and I can't seem to get it right :lol: Any test like this is going to be dependent on getting the exposure for each shot as similar as possible (not easy given the different sensor sizes).

So far though the 60D has surprised me, giving me better results than seen in the field, and sometimes less noise than the 5D. One thing I did forget about though was the softness of the images produced, and subsequent sharpening to get images close to those from the 5D *may* be where the noise is coming from.

I'll do a proper test later in the week to confirm or not :bonk:
 
grotty said:
Sounds encouraging, I'm looking forward to trying the 135 f2 on it and hoping to source a wider fast prime or two, too :).
Click to expand...

I can recommend the Canon 35mm f/2 for an inexpensive wide (on 5d at least) prime, I love mine.
 
I find the noise and focus of my 5D ok. Both get critisised a lot but I have no real problems. I put some shots in the 5D thread (link below.) All the night fishing ones were ISO 3200 at f1.4 using the centre focus point and despite being at f1.4 and ISO 3200 and despite being completely off my head on cheap Vodka I think I only deleted one shot as being a "miss."

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=281735&page=23
 
odd jim said:
I can recommend the Canon 35mm f/2 for an inexpensive wide (on 5d at least) prime, I love mine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree optically. I had one but just couldn't hack the focusing noise, so that pretty much dismisses all the relatively inexpensive Canon wide primes (24/28/35).
 
manualfocus-g said:
Well I've spent an hour in controlled conditions tonight shooting the two cameras and I can't seem to get it right :lol: Any test like this is going to be dependent on getting the exposure for each shot as similar as possible (not easy given the different sensor sizes).

So far though the 60D has surprised me, giving me better results than seen in the field, and sometimes less noise than the 5D. One thing I did forget about though was the softness of the images produced, and subsequent sharpening to get images close to those from the 5D *may* be where the noise is coming from.

I'll do a proper test later in the week to confirm or not :bonk:
Click to expand...

What are the controlled conditions you are trying?

Back when I was shooting products, I experimented with a borrowed 5D classic, with the idea of buying one as a second body. In studio conditions shooting at ISO100 I found it had a certain pop to the image, when compared to my 50D, but nothing that couldn't be resolved with a little post processing. The borrowed 5D mk2 was streets ahead though.

Where the 50D scored over the 5D classic was when shooting building renovations at high ISO. I found when pushing ISO to 800 or 1600, the 50D was better at handling the noise in the darks. The 5D mk2 was superb though.

However, as I do a mix of shooting and the product work tailed off, I stuck with the 50D as I felt more comfortable with it. There's certain little nuances with it that I missed with the 5D, such as the menu, the instant access to useful features through the joystick, and the 5D felt clunky.

I am currently desiring the 5D mk3 though :)

I guess the real answer is it depends on what you shoot. Certainly the 5D classic is a very capable camera in the right conditions, I'm just not sure it outshines more modern cameras in high ISO though.
 
odd jim said:
To the op, the 5d1 does NOT make aps-c look like a compact so really take the above with a pinch of salt :)

Extra dof? My 50d with the 50mm f1.8 will give me more dof than my 5d at f/4. it depends entirely how you equip and use it. But let's not start that debate again.

The problem is with the 5d mk1 it's dated sensor isn't anywhere near the quality of other FF bodies IMO and it doesn't warrant a change from a decent modern crop to a slower clunkier FF body that doesn't really have superior iq compared to modern crops. A mk2 or 3 however is a worthwhile upgrade, depending on what you use it for.
Click to expand...

Obviously I was exaggerating for effect with the compact quote, but when I had a play with a 5dII (yes not a mkI but) the images were miles nicer than those produced by my D5100, and the D5100’s sensor is said to be a brilliant APS-C sensor. Also looking at images on flickr from 5D’s they are amazing, despite the ‘Dated sensor’ they still seem to look more special than the APS-C camera’s. Of course its all down to the user, but generally there are nicer looking images produced by the full frame camera’s.

If it where my choice then I know which way I’d swing to.
 
Last edited:
Niall97 said:
Obviously I was exaggerating for effect with the compact quote, but when I had a play with a 5dII (yes not a mkI but) the images were miles nicer than those produced by my D5100, and the D5100’s sensor is said to be a brilliant APS-C sensor. Also looking at images on flickr from 5D’s they are amazing, despite the ‘Dated sensor’ they still seem to look more special than the APS-C camera’s. Of course its all down to the user, but generally there are nicer looking images produced by the full frame camera’s.

If it where my choice then I know which way I’d swing to.
Click to expand...

So you haven't used one? Tbh Flickr isn't a very good way to compare images either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top