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

  • Thread starter Thread starter stratocaster72
  • Start date Start date
I compared the 60D directly with the 5D when I owned both before deciding which one to keep. I chose the 5D but it wasn't an easy decision. In fact it was based on an eventual upgrade to a mkII and build my lens collection in between.

The 5D gave better high ISO performance with slightly less noise but due to the 12 MP I found that when cropped the 5D showed less resolutiontion than the 60D (if resolution is the correct term).

I compared both with the 24-105 and 50mm 1.8 and also compared the 24-105 (5D) with the 17-55 2.8 (60D).

One thing that confused me is the fact that the 5D had slower or equal shutter speeds and showed a poorer exposure level (tended to under expose compared to 60D).

I loved the feel of the 5D and the way it handled my Sigma 70-200 2.8 so I sold both and bought a 5DII. This has the best of both worlds in my opinion.
 
odd jim said:
So you haven't used one? Tbh Flickr isn't a very good way to compare images either.
Click to expand...

I was giving my opinion on the difference between a good APS-C sensor and a good FF sensor, illustrating the gap between FF and APS-C, this gap from my experience is certainly a significant one.

I have seen the opinion of somebody who has had both APS-C and currently has the 5D. He prefers the 5D and says that the images are a lot better, looking at both his APS-C shots and the FF the 5D’s images just look a lot nicer. I think that is a pretty Valid comparison.

Also Flickr IS a good way to compare as long as you look through many images from the two cameras to get a reliable idea as to the images you can expect from each camera, even more reliable given it is from a broad range of different photographers with different shooting/editing styles. Let put it one way, its a better comparison than just reading Dxo scores and all that rubbish, they are genuine, real world Photographs, how much closer to trying them for yourself can you get?
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about my gear a lot recently which is bad and frustrating because although gear is a part of my liking of photography I often want it to be in the background with image taking being the main priority.

To me a 5D + prime lens is bordering on too much to carry and use. An APS-C with prime is a teeny tiny bit better and a CSC is quite a bit better. The problem is that with each downsizing for me there's more of a struggle to both maintain image quality and get the shot that I'd ideally want. This isn't helped by the (IMVHO) tendency of manufacturers to shoot themselves in the foot and generally do lots to hobble their own cameras and systems. For example, X Pro 1 with a great lens line up but questionable AF and MF. Nex 7 with what looks like a good camera but (IMVHO) a poor lens line up. And all with FBW no marking lenses.
 
Niall97 said:
I was giving my opinion on the difference between a good APS-C sensor and a good FF sensor, illustrating the gap between FF and APS-C, this gap from my experience is certainly a significant one.

I have seen the opinion of somebody who has had both APS-C and currently has the 5D. He prefers the 5D and says that the images are a lot better, looking at both his APS-C shots and the FF the 5D’s images just look a lot nicer. I think that is a pretty Valid comparison.

Also Flickr IS a good way to compare as long as you look through many images from the two cameras to get a reliable idea as to the images you can expect from each camera, even more reliable given it is from a broad range of different photographers with different shooting/editing styles. Let put it one way, its a better comparison than just reading Dxo scores and all that rubbish, they are genuine, real world Photographs, how much closer to trying them for yourself can you get?
Click to expand...

I agree about the real world aspects of flickr vs dxo scores, but my point is purely in relation to viewing size and resolutions on the web. I'd challenge anyone to pick which shot was the FF shot between say a crop using a 35mm f/2 at f2 and an FF using a 50mm at f/2.8 via flickr. It would be difficult, particularly with the 5dc.

I agree, a modern FF vs any crop the FF will be ahead by quite a bit. But the 5dc it's not so black and white. Unless mine has issues, as I say, it was bought in need of a service which I havnt had yet!
 
Last edited:
Having done the same thinking I've decided to let go of APS-c and split my system between CSC and full frame. APS-C has become the worst of both worlds, not portable and the image quality is not there for me.

I've held back on my CSC upgrades waiting for canon to show their hand. If they can put out a system with the g1x sensor and compact (MFT-size) lenses I might be sold on that.
 
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...

And you're not taking account of the glass used.
 
Really interesting replies.
In the end I kept losing out on the 5d's on Ebay (I didn't want to go over £550 and wanted one in good condition) so gave up and bought a shiny new 5d mark ii :) and it's great.

Compared to the 60d? It's all the slight differences that make it better, but I'm keeping both.
There does seem to be an almost..... Ethereal/luminous feel to the 5d pix when I push the exposure that seems slightly more sterile on the 60d.. It just seems to handle the light better with the iso about 800,, maybe it's the depth of field thing, maybe the cleaner noise, who knows lol.

Oh, what I meant about exposure was being able to use high iso in low light without noise, so I can use the high iso as opposed to trying to slow the shutter speed instead.
 
odd jim said:
I agree about the real world aspects of flickr vs dxo scores, but my point is purely in relation to viewing size and resolutions on the web. I'd challenge anyone to pick which shot was the FF shot between say a crop using a 35mm f/2 at f2 and an FF using a 50mm at f/2.8 via flickr. It would be difficult, particularly with the 5dc.

I agree, a modern FF vs any crop the FF will be ahead by quite a bit. But the 5dc it's not so black and white. Unless mine has issues, as I say, it was bought in need of a service which I havnt had yet!
Click to expand...

Well at different apertures that takes away the whole point, if you compare them in the same circumstances with the same lens at the same apeture then FF shots would be the better IMO.
 
Niall97 said:
Well at different apertures that takes away the whole point, if you compare them in the same circumstances with the same lens at the same apeture then FF shots would be the better IMO.
Click to expand...

But that's almost irrelevant. You can set both cameras up to achieve the same shot to make the results almost indistinguishable, at least when viewing web size.

I'm not spouting BS, I own both bodies remember so just trying to impart some useful experience to the OP.
 
odd jim said:
But that's almost irrelevant. You can set both cameras up to achieve the same shot to make the results almost indistinguishable, at least when viewing web size.

I'm not spouting BS, I own both bodies remember so just trying to impart some useful experience to the OP.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course :) I just thought I’d share my opinion based upon countless different sources and Pictures. Basically the message I was trying to get across was that; In general based upon the Photographs I have seen the 5’d images look like the better of it and APS-C cameras. If the OP value’s my opinion or not that is their decision, but personally I’d have the 5D over a 60D.
 
So to answer the initial question, it's close and no you're not being stupid. :-)
 
Well, this is fascinating! I've taken some shots indoors, cropped the 5D image to match the 60D image field of view and then resized the 60D images to match the resolution of the 5D images. The 60D images are much cleaner! Looks like I owe Jim an apology :lol:

I haven't seen these kind of results in the field however, so next time I'm out on a shoot I will take both cameras to check.

Here's some boring 100% crops using a Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200, shot in RAW and converted to JPG using Adobe Camera Raw and its standard settings:

5D @ 1600

5D_1600_crop.jpg


60D @1600

60D_1600_crop.jpg



5D @ 3200 - shot is slightly OOF

5D_3200_crop.jpg


60D @3200

60D_3200_crop.jpg
 
Yes looks like the 60D has almost a full stop's advantage; the ISO 3200 from 60D is almost as good as the ISO 1600 from the 5D. Let's give it 2/3 of a stop.. which is significant already.

Same thing with my 7D vs 5D, the 7D rarely sees ISO >1600 while the 5D stays at 800 or below. Fast prime lenses and tripods help ;)
 
manualfocus-g said:
Well, this is fascinating! I've taken some shots indoors, cropped the 5D image to match the 60D image field of view and then resized the 60D images to match the resolution of the 5D images. The 60D images are much cleaner! Looks like I owe Jim an apology :lol:

I haven't seen these kind of results in the field however, so next time I'm out on a shoot I will take both cameras to check.

Here's some boring 100% crops using a Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200, shot in RAW and converted to JPG using Adobe Camera Raw and its standard settings:

5D @ 1600

60D @1600

5D @ 3200 - shot is slightly OOF

60D @3200
Click to expand...

At least I know now I'm not going mad! :)
 
manualfocus-g said:
Haha, not going mad after all! It has come as quite a shock to me though :)

Which begs the question, how have DXOMark come up with their scores, particularly around the colour mark?!
Click to expand...

Quite! One of the reasons I never really consider dxo scores.
 
look at the saturation on the reds in these shots, 5D has a nice neutral saturation, check out the word THIN AIR on the spine for comparison. This muted tone is what I love about the 5D... and the fact that the noise renders quite nicely anyway, so just leave it in there. Adds character :razz: :D
 
Ok so I went to DXOmark to see.. and yes, they say 5D has a 2/3 stop advantage over the 60D in high ISO.. :bonk: The other way around than your (and my) personal results!

The clue may be in how they figure out the ISO threshold and subsequently end up with ISO 813 for the 60D:

"The SNR indicates how much noise is present in an image compared to the actual information (signal). The higher the SNR value, the better the image looks, because details aren't drowned by noise. SNR strength is given in dB, which is a logarithmic scale: an increase of 6 dB corresponds to doubling the SNR, which equates to half the noise for the same signal.
An SNR value of 30dB means excellent image quality. Thus low-light ISO is the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits."
Click to expand...

The 7D sensor is pretty noisy at low ISOs.. I know because I have one. I think the 60D has the same sensor? Maybe the 60D is hitting one of these hard thresholds of 30dB SNR, 9 stop DR and 18bit color depth BEFORE the 5D and that's ALL that this score shows. It doesn't show us how the sensors behave on these individual measurements or even how they hold up beyond this point where one of the measurements fails. Clearly the 60D is beating the 5D at ISO 3200, I have zero doubt about THAT. But it's never going to show up on DXOmark because it's a sudden death measurement and the 7D/60D sensor wasn't built to win that race. On a related note, the 5D3 sensor probably wasn't built to win that race either...

Seems like the DXO guys invented a clever benchmark which is not valid if your ISO performance doesn't degrade linearly ;)
 
manualfocus-g said:
Here's the results processed in Canon DPP with the "Standard" presets and all noise reduction switched off (although I'm not convinced it is entirely!), before resize and crop in CS5. In this instance, the 60D images look softer.
Click to expand...

dpp is strange software that gives rather odd results. It was probably never optimised for 5D either. I tend to leave it well alone and use Lightroom, which renders cleaner files without such big loss of details or introduction of strong artifacts.
 
daugirdas said:
dpp is strange software that gives rather odd results. It was probably never optimised for 5D either. I tend to leave it well alone and use Lightroom, which renders cleaner files without such big loss of details or introduction of strong artifacts.
Click to expand...

Thats an interesting coment about Canon DPP, I recently went on a canon semina and they were telling us all about the advantages of DPP, That i does not strip away all the data from your photographs unlike Lightroom or Photoshop and that there is significantly less noise when using DPP. There is also examples of this in there latest making the most of your EOS flash system DVD.

But like most of us i prefer using Lightroom and Photoshop simply because of its ease of use unlike DPP which seems like it might be a pig to use it all the time for doing lots of photographs, But i did have a play around with it and it did seem to cause less noise in my photographs.
 
Well I'm now the owner of a pretty much unmarked example, serial starting '38' so I assume a late one?...Got it from MPB who sorted out a slight glitch with my order (first one had a mark not shown in photos) in an exemplary fashion. Feels very similar to the mark II, I think it's a shame the ISO doesn't extend past 3200 as it seems more than usable for regular size prints.
 
Hotshots said:
Thats an interesting coment about Canon DPP, I recently went on a canon semina and they were telling us all about the advantages of DPP, That i does not strip away all the data from your photographs unlike Lightroom or Photoshop and that there is significantly less noise when using DPP. There is also examples of this in there latest making the most of your EOS flash system DVD.

But like most of us i prefer using Lightroom and Photoshop simply because of its ease of use unlike DPP which seems like it might be a pig to use it all the time for doing lots of photographs, But i did have a play around with it and it did seem to cause less noise in my photographs.
Click to expand...

I find DPP is far better at processing high iso files than anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top