# Comparing my 60d with my new 5d3 not seeing much of a difference.



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 31, 2012)

I am having a hard time comparing photos at various iso's between the two in real life around the house shots any suggestions that anyone has would be great on how to test this during my return period. So far it has better color saturation and lower noise but it's still there. Maybe it's the kit lens but if so that's all I can afford right now. Ohh yeah and I do like the auto shutter speed you can set. Those who said it does not work just don't realize if the camera cannot shoot at your max set iso it will lower the shutter speed. That is a good thing. It's like people would want it not to work. Either way any good testing suggestions would be great. Also it seems like the 24-105 is really not that far of a zoom. I think if I keep it I will have to invest in a zoom before a prime.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I am having a hard time comparing photos at various iso's between the two in real life around the house shots any suggestions that anyone has would be great on how to test this during my return period.



Watch out for flying objects in your direction  ... seriously: the 24-105 might be a "kit" lens, but it's a very good one - so that's not your problem. And since the 5d is not an aps-c camera with "built-in" 1.6x teleconverter, it appears much shorter on full frame. And increased iso range does not mean you can shoot with f4 in the dark expecting no noise - wait another 10-20 years for that, but by then Canon will probably be bought by Sony.

If you look at your current photographic ability and your budget, you might want to consider returning the 5d3 and get a some nice lenses to experiment with focal lengths and depth of field ... after all changing lenses is part of what a dslr is about. Did I mention the 60d/5d2 runs the stellar "magic lantern" firmware addon while the 7d/5d3 does not  ? You can then buy the 5dx or 5d4 once it's out...


----------



## unkbob (Apr 1, 2012)

If you can't tell the difference between a 60D and a 5D3, then the simple solution is to return the 5D3 and save yourself 3 grand. A fancy camera doesn't improve your eye or make colours so amazing that unicorns magically appear in a cloud of pixie dust and dance around in exultation - you'll have to wait for the mark iv for that.

FWIW I would much rather have a 5D / 5D2 and some nice lenses than a 5D3 and just the 24-105. Lenses are everything. In good light with the same lens, a $600 5D and a $3000 5D3 produce very similar images. Stick a 50L on a 5D and you'll be able to create images that a 5D3 with a zoom lens would be incapable of.


----------



## Radiating (Apr 1, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I am having a hard time comparing photos at various iso's between the two in real life around the house shots any suggestions that anyone has would be great on how to test this during my return period. So far it has better color saturation and lower noise but it's still there. Maybe it's the kit lens but if so that's all I can afford right now. Ohh yeah and I do like the auto shutter speed you can set. Those who said it does not work just don't realize if the camera cannot shoot at your max set iso it will lower the shutter speed. That is a good thing. It's like people would want it not to work. Either way any good testing suggestions would be great. Also it seems like the 24-105 is really not that far of a zoom. I think if I keep it I will have to invest in a zoom before a prime.




If you really can't see the difference between a 5D mark III and a 60D then it's probably too much camera for you. The difference between the two is probably the greatest difference between two DSLRs in any given generation, ever.

The difference is groundbreaking when compared to what you see between any other two cameras. I'm also not sure why you're criticizing the 5D3 for "still having noise" despite it being lower. The 5D3 isn't magically embued with the power to defy the laws of physics. Light has noise on a quantum level because the particles themselves arive randomly on the sensor. The more particles you collect, the lower the noise because the randomness averages out. 

The 5D3 collects around 6 (SIX) times as many light particles as the 60D, that's obscenely huge, in the camera world a 30% difference is considered a big improvement. In fact the 5D3 collects around twice as much light as the 5D2 (based on initial comparisons), and the 5D2 collects just under 3 times as much light as the 60D (according to DXO mark).

Your kit lens has nothing to do with noise and color.

Anyways here's what the difference is:







The difference is very obvious, again six times less noise


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 1, 2012)

Yikes. If you cant see the difference between 60D and 5DIII photos, something is very VERY wrong.


----------



## thien135 (Apr 1, 2012)

According to what u said, I would say "return the 5d3" because u are not able to handle it yet. (No offense)


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 1, 2012)

I can think of two scenarios in which the difference in IQ between a 60D and 5DIII wouldn't be obvious:

1) You've refined you're technique so much, that you're able to get such outstanding results from a 60D that rivals that of a 5DIII. 

2) You've never quite pushed the limits of the 60D, in which case better equipment won't do much for your image at all. 

If #1 were the case, however, you should be able to apply that same technique set to the 5DIII, and get some truly stunning results. It's like I tell my wannabe wine buddies. If you can't tell the difference between a $5 bottle and a $50 bottle, by all means save your money and drink the $5 bottle.


----------



## AKCalixto (Apr 1, 2012)

Bump the ISO up to 6400 and let me know if can notice any difference!


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

Those are valid comments but either way I know enough to say that the difference is not that noticeable to me so far just shooting around the house. The camera definetly addresses some noise issues I suffered from the 60d and i had a chance to shoot a video of my daughter today with the all-i comp. it was unbelievable and blew away the 60d. I have only used it a day. I guess i was just looking for some benchmark suggestions but i would love to grow with this camera and the 5d2 af system just won't work for me. I also think the raw conversions will get better as the camera has been out a little while so I am still on the fence. I did go out with the family today and came back with great shots aside from a few user errors. I will update again when i have a chance to post tommorrow how its going. How can I post samples here to show you?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

AKCalixto said:


> Bump the ISO up to 6400 and let me know if can notice any difference!



I did and its noticeable but with jpegs it just retains more detail. I have had mixed results with lr4 and dpp with raw conversions.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 1, 2012)

The 60D is a good camera. While you would be able to see a diferrence in side by side shot comparisons with a 5Diii, for real life use, the differences are largely immaterial unless you are shooting at high ISOs, printing BIG or seeking more background blur.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 1, 2012)

In good lighting, viewed on usual web size, there really should not be huge difference bet. 60D and 5D III. Heck, even iPhone produces decent photos in good lighting when viewed on the web. I like the sensor on 7D/60D/600D/550D, which is basically the same sensor. 

It's when lighting becomes poor or when you need better Al Servo type AF for moving objects, the keeper rate goes up a lot with 5D III IME.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 1, 2012)

Another possibility would be to try to hook up with a photographer who is more advanced and have him put it through its paces for you. Try photography meetups on the web-people love to help in these meetups.

Although there will be an occasional clunker, I went to a camera store today, and they told me they had no returns on all the 5DEIII's they sold.

sek



 KKCFamilyman said:


> Those are valid comments but either way I know enough to say that the difference is not that noticeable to me so far just shooting around the house. The camera definetly addresses some noise issues I suffered from the 60d and i had a chance to shoot a video of my daughter today with the all-i comp. it was unbelievable and blew away the 60d. I have only used it a day. I guess i was just looking for some benchmark suggestions but i would love to grow with this camera and the 5d2 af system just won't work for me. I also think the raw conversions will get better as the camera has been out a little while so I am still on the fence. I did go out with the family today and came back with great shots aside from a few user errors. I will update again when i have a chance to post tommorrow how its going. How can I post samples here to show you?


----------



## cMojo (Apr 1, 2012)

I'd have to agree that if one doesn't see a difference between the two, then it's probably best to just return the camera and use some of the savings to book an appointment with a good opthamologist.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 1, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> the 5d2 af system just won't work for me.



Because that's what you've read on the internet. I and thousands of others have used the 5d2 professionally without any problems and unless you're a sports photographer it will be more than surplus to your requirements. If you can't even tell the difference between a 60D and a 5D3, you're not going to be creatively stifled by the 5D2.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

Here is a pic from the 5d3. 
It is great. I just shot my wife on working on the laptop under a light with a dark background. I do like the shots better than the 60d. I guess my expectations where so high that I would just be able to point an shoot and if the dof, shutter speed, iso, exposure where right then I would have these photos that where like the ones Canon posts when a new camera comes out. I know I still have a lot to go with but there are a lot of little feautures I bought this for:
Better Video
ISO performance
AF points being that there are more to manually select
being able to set the min shutter and iso for p modes (when the wife uses it)
more natural light indoor shots
image comparision during playback
ai servo 3 for when my wife and I run races and people can pass you at that last second
dual card slots
I do feel that when the raw conversions for lightroom finalize the pictures will be better. I also feel that when I add some primes I will know the camera better. I know this has way more than I will ever need but that was the point to get something I will not feel I will outgrow.

I basically outgrew the 60d for the simple fact that the iso is not as clean above 800-3200 and I know that the better I learn this camera then I can have those clean iso's. I also want to be able to shoot a stop above what I do now to retain my chosen dof and double my shutter speed with the active children hoping for less blurr. If the readers still think I should return this then please tell me since that is why I asked.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 1, 2012)

My 50D handles 400 ISO with ease, so the 60D should be at least as good.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Here is a pic from the 5d3.
> It is great. I just shot my wife on working on the laptop under a light with a dark background. I do like the shots better than the 60d. I guess my expectations where so high that I would just be able to point an shoot and if the dof, shutter speed, iso, exposure where right then I would have these photos that where like the ones Canon posts when a new camera comes out. I know I still have a lot to go with but there are a lot of little feautures I bought this for:
> Better Video
> ISO performance
> ...



Sorry here is the pic there is a slight bit of vingetting but I know pp can fix that.
f4.5 1/125 iso5000 105mm


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 1, 2012)

Try shooting at 25600 ISO and see the difference.... the 60D should show quite a bit of noi....... waitamminit




also: if you're shooting flowers at ISO 400 and seeing noise.... just what are you doing? Post more shots?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

Here is my cat in manual 1/100 f4 iso 10000 105mm just converted raw in lr4.1. I mean this room is very low light as in no lights on accept the adjacent room I was in and I think it is pretty clean for such a poor lighting condition so yeah just from that I can guarantee my 60d would not do that unless I had a low f stop and still it would be a challenge. If anyone thinks it is not a good shot feel free to chime in. I'm not insulted. I just love photography.


----------



## agierke (Apr 1, 2012)

KKCF

it appears to me that you are in the process of learning photography and that your focus has been on getting familiar with the tools. that is great and it sounds like you are starting to see what the 5d3 has to offer over previous models. it is very important to understand how to use your tools in order to get better at photography.

but that will only take you so far....

at a certain point you will maximize your understanding of how your camera and lenses work. it is at this point that separates the truly great professionals from the serious amateurs. understanding and identifying great light is the next step. once you start to understand what lighting conditions provide for really fantastic photography you will start to see that your gear is not the limiting factor. more often than not the greatest limiting factor is timing and opportunity. the light will dictate what you can and cannot do as well as if there is a truly great photograph to be had.

i only wanted to point that out because i got a sense from your posts that you were expecting the 5D3 to provide a significant improvement in your images through its technology alone. this is rarely the case as the best light will provide great photos regardless of the camera you are using (assuming there are capable hands operating that camera).

i hope you continue to make strides and enjoy your new camera! i do encourage you to start thinking more about different qualities of light and what settings are required to take fullest advantage of that light.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

agierke said:


> KKCF
> 
> it appears to me that you are in the process of learning photography and that your focus has been on getting familiar with the tools. that is great and it sounds like you are starting to see what the 5d3 has to offer over previous models. it is very important to understand how to use your tools in order to get better at photography.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the advice. I plan on learning more and more about light, flash, composition, etc. i have made great strides in the short two years I have had a dslr. I do realize that phtography lessons are needed but i figured they woukd be better practiced on this than having to learn methods and apply them to a different body later. I will still play with this a week or so longer and decide if the investment is worth it now or in a year or so when I have gained more skill. Did you think the photo's turned out ok?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Try shooting at 25600 ISO and see the difference.... the 60D should show quite a bit of noi....... waitamminit
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Will do but I never said my flowers were bad at iso400. The pic I posted was iso5000.


----------



## DCM1024 (Apr 1, 2012)

I went through a very similar experience last year comparing a Rebel T2i to the 5d2. First 2 shoots were in studio. Bride selected 2 enlargements, one from each camera and I was disappointed that I couldn't see any remarkable difference in side-by-side enlargement comparisons. Next shoot was a band performing at sunset. The ONLY useable shots came from the 5d2 due to the expanded ISO performance. Keep shooting in more demanding conditions - you'll see. Debbie


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 1, 2012)

DCM1024 said:


> I went through a very similar experience last year comparing a Rebel T2i to the 5d2. First 2 shoots were in studio. Bride selected 2 enlargements, one from each camera and I was disappointed that I couldn't see any remarkable difference in side-by-side enlargement comparisons. Next shoot was a band performing at sunset. The ONLY useable shots came from the 5d2 due to the expanded ISO performance. Keep shooting in more demanding conditions - you'll see. Debbie



Yea, I went from the Rebel XSi (450D) to the 5d2, and the first day I got it I went to a dance performance and got some nice shots and was blown away by what I could do with the ISO performance. Now, I'm looking forward to pushing what I can do with the 5d3


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 1, 2012)

[/quote]

Thanks for the advice. I plan on learning more and more about light, flash, composition, etc. i have made great strides in the short two years I have had a dslr. I do realize that phtography lessons are needed but i figured they woukd be better practiced on this than having to learn methods and apply them to a different body later. I will still play with this a week or so longer and decide if the investment is worth it now or in a year or so when I have gained more skill. Did you think the photo's turned out ok?
[/quote]

From your statement it appears that you are not a professional photographer (I mean only that you probably do not earn anything substantial from photography yet) and you are learning and enjoying your photography technique. My understanding is that your 60D is a good enough camera (probably more than good enough) to do that. You have stated that you think it does not make sense to learn techniques on one camera body and then apply them with another camera body. Well it is not as if you are changing from Canon to Nikon to Sony where the lay out of buttons and menus makes the cross application of techniques time consuming. You are learning (or going to learn) techniques on a 60D which is more or less functionally similar (definitely not identical) to all other DSLRS of Canon lineup. Moreover, there is another issue to consider. Do you think you shall be satisfied with your 5DIII in 3 years/4 years down the line when 5DIV or something like that comes up? Then you will change to 5DIV and that will be a new body. You WILL have to "apply to a different body later" one way or the other. That is probably not a very sound rationale for buying 5DIII (you definitely may have other reasons to buy 5DIII, I am just saying this particular logic is not sound).

Ask yourself, if you do not see the difference between 60D photos and 5DIII photos then why buy 5DIII? Just because it is a "better" camera? But how would you enjoy its "betterness" if you yourself are not sure in what way it is better? Instead of buying 5DIII today you can invest in better lens/glass and two years from now when your 60D grow long in the tooth, you will definitely have developed so much as a photographer that you will probably buy 5DIV (may be or something even better) and enjoy it better. Because you WILL know "how" that is better than your old 60D or even the current 5DIII. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 1, 2012)

I think in good light at iso100 it will be difficult to see much IQ difference. The most obvious difference is the bg blur when compared to a ff


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Here is my cat in manual 1/100 f4 iso 10000 105mm just converted raw in lr4.1.


Imho a good test picture of what *not* to do with a 5d3 and a f4 zoom. You'd gotten a much better picture when using two flashes (bounce and fill) and/or a faster lens - the lovely corner in the background really deserves to be blurred by bokeh. And generally IS does not freeze your cat, 1/100s is very slow for 100mm and your image is motion-blurred even at this resolution. Furthermore you'd have to overexpose to get more detail out of the black cat and then postprocess it properly - atm it looks like a black hole with yellow eyes.



unkbob said:


> So the OP has only a couple of zooms and needs advice about the best lenses for his 60D, and then ONE DAY later he's already bought a 5D3 and is complaining about it not being much of an upgrade? Jeez, slow down dude! Get to know your camera, what lenses you like, experiment with primes, and then you can figure out what the advantages AND disadvantages of a full frame camera are.



http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5088

KKCFamilyman, really, looking at your postings and the advice given from a lot of people, you seem to *want* to ignore advice given to you. If you are out to do something anyway and just want to have your opinion strengthened, you might think about saving other people's time around here - personally I'm happy to help with my limited knowledge, but no one likes to talk to a wall.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 1, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> If you can't tell the difference between a $5 bottle and a $50 bottle, by all means save your money and drink the $5 bottle.



I say the same things to my customers! When they are telling me that it's no point buying L just because they're better built , you know, in a way that they have discovered the horrible plot I haven't, LOL.

Then I say, if you have the right glasses and you can't see the L is better in every which way, then good for you, you saved a bunch a money... but it is way better, I add almost silently, and very arrogant ;D


----------



## koolman (Apr 1, 2012)

I'm sure what I'm going to say will stir up lots of flack.

For me as a hobbiest, part of the hobby is placing emphasis on trying to improve my skills as a photographer. I am not under pressure to "get the shot" and I'm not under pressure to shoot in low light fast moving situations. I dont have a customer to satisfy - other then myself.

My 550d and certainly a 60d - is plenty of camera for a hobby. Sure - the IQ of a $3,500 FF camera will be better, but that is due to its superiority as a tool. Yes, there are some creative advantages in FF cameras that are not available in crops, but I cant justify the extra $$$$ just for that.

I get much more exited seeing great shots taken with "simple" equipment - that emphasize the photographers skill, then "great shots" - that express an expensive piece of equipment.

Thats me I guess.


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 1, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I think in good light at iso100 it will be difficult to see much IQ difference. The most obvious difference is the bg blur when compared to a ff


What he said. With a good lens and a good lighting set-up, there is no reason why you can't produce magazine-quality results with a 60D. If you are super-super picky you can pick things out. The 5D3 however should be much more forgiving when presented with sub-optimal conditions. That's really the reason to get it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2012)

koolman said:


> I'm sure what I'm going to say will stir up lots of flack.



I guess you'd be surprised how many people will agree with you, esp. seeing clueless owners of top equipment (bless them, they keep Canon in business!).

It's just like in the computer biz: One year, a given cheap PC "type a" is for entry level word processing, the more expensive "type b" is for serious enthusiast apps. The next year, everything has magically moved down and "type b" is only good for your kids or wife anymore and so on... that's "planned obsolescence" and keeps the companies running.

The one thing that really separates equipment seems to be: How will your gear react if used in the rain or a sandstorm, and how will it do if dropped to a concrete floor from medium height.


----------



## MarkB (Apr 1, 2012)

I too moved from a 60D to a 5d3. I would say moved is not fair. The 60D will likely see a lot of work for bird photos and other long shots where the 1.6x helps a lot.

After some tests I would say that I can get really useable shots up to 12800 and maybe 25600 with a lot of post. I did occasionally use up to 3200 on the 60D. So thats about 2 more useable stops. Maybe two and a half.

One big difference I noticed the first day was that the 50mm f1.4 lens correction profile isn't default loaded on the 5d3. I enjoyed that lens on my 60D and got some of my favorite photos from it when it was stopped down to about 1.8 or more. I tried out that lens right away because I wanted to see the low light limit!. I have attached on shot showing how bad the vignetting is without the correction. The second (insanely noisy) shot was taken with all lights off at max iso (102480) and 1.4 aperture. I could not see her at all but the camera achieved autofocus!


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 1, 2012)

Okay, here it is:

1.

Using a long focal length while shooting at an angle, usually gives photos an off look. So, either get lower at the level of the cat or use 24 mm at about the same angle. You'll see that the subject sticks out.

2.

You have to consider what photos are. A photo is a bunch of shapes that the human eye has to see; for a good photo, the human also says "wow". For this, you need enough light to make those shapes clearly visible (sure, mood photos may differ). However, this is not enough. You also need to see differences among shapes, and this requires dynamic range. You have to fill a lot of more of the eye's dynamic range to make the subject pop.

What the cat photo lacks (and the flower shot as well) is dynamic range (aside brightness). Basically, everything is murky, it's difficult to perceive where one shape ends and another starts.

Because the original scene has a very low dynamic range, you can improve it through exposure only to a limited degree. However, you can improve it more in post processing, by increasing for example the Whites (in LR4).


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2012)

MarkB said:


> One big difference I noticed the first day was that the 50mm f1.4 lens correction profile isn't default loaded on the 5d3.



... I guess that you know that you can put Canon lens profiles on the camera with dpp. But it's interesting that it's not inside the 5d3 by default, so Canon might not expect this combination to be used often - this could point to the rumored 50mm replacement or can prove the fact that Canon also thinks that their current 50/1.4 is crappy.

Concerning the second picture: I wouldn't say this is strictly "in focus"


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

Thanks for the advice. I have posted a few threads but not about the same topic. I am looking at plan b with a lens upgrade if the 5d3 does not prove to have the results I am after. To be totally honest I think the 5d3 would be great for me if I could have afforded the soon to be released 24-70 II and 70-200 2.8 II then there would be no questions but since I can only afford the camera for now I am debating. I do like how it sounds and how much faster it locks on and the fact that when better glass gets put on I can comfortable shoot at higher iso's than my 60d which is why I was considering this in the first place. That's the main reason and maybe some lessons will help me bring maximize that FF sensor because no matter what I still need a higher iso capable body. I simply hate using a flash just to grab an indoor daylight pic of the kids playing. I think that the 5d3 will do better at acheiving that with less noise.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 1, 2012)

Ok here's an analogy for you.

Let's say I live in the city and walk to work everyday. It takes me 30 minutes. So I upgrade to a Ferrari, but because of the traffic it still takes me 30 minutes. Therefore I can see no difference between the two modes of transport.

SELL THE FERRARI OR MOVE OUT OF THE CITY.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

ok 5d3 iso6400


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

5d3 iso12800


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

60d iso 6400


----------



## unkbob (Apr 1, 2012)

5D3. 1/125s F4 ISO 12,800


----------



## jasonsim (Apr 1, 2012)

If you're going to take photos of static objects, I recommend ditching the 5D III and put the 60D on a sturdy Gitzo or RRS tripod. And get a flash with a diffuser...Gary LightSphere or something.


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Apr 1, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I am having a hard time comparing photos at various iso's between the two in real life around the house shots any suggestions that anyone has would be great on how to test this during my return period. So far it has better color saturation and lower noise but it's still there. Maybe it's the kit lens but if so that's all I can afford right now. Ohh yeah and I do like the auto shutter speed you can set. Those who said it does not work just don't realize if the camera cannot shoot at your max set iso it will lower the shutter speed. That is a good thing. It's like people would want it not to work. Either way any good testing suggestions would be great. Also it seems like the 24-105 is really not that far of a zoom. I think if I keep it I will have to invest in a zoom before a prime.




What "Auto Shutter" are you referring to? Are you talking about "Av (Aperture Priority) Mode" that lets you choose the Aperture while the camera chooses the Shutter Speed automatically, because that's on your 60D as well every other modern DSLR that Canon makes. Or did I miss something new?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

jasonsim said:


> If you're going to take photos of static objects, I recommend ditching the 5D III and put the 60D on a sturdy Gitzo or RRS tripod. And get a flash with a diffuser...Gary LightSphere or something.



No those where just examples to show the forum. I am taking them of my kids but my wife would rather I not post pics of my children online and as they move each one would be different. What are you processing your raws with and are you doing any post to them?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

DarkKnightNine said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am having a hard time comparing photos at various iso's between the two in real life around the house shots any suggestions that anyone has would be great on how to test this during my return period. So far it has better color saturation and lower noise but it's still there. Maybe it's the kit lens but if so that's all I can afford right now. Ohh yeah and I do like the auto shutter speed you can set. Those who said it does not work just don't realize if the camera cannot shoot at your max set iso it will lower the shutter speed. That is a good thing. It's like people would want it not to work. Either way any good testing suggestions would be great. Also it seems like the 24-105 is really not that far of a zoom. I think if I keep it I will have to invest in a zoom before a prime.
> ...



I was referring to being able to set the min shutter speed in av, tv and p modes because in av for example on the 60d it always jumps to 1/60 which is frustrating so I like the 1/125 and 1/250 option.


----------



## XanuFoto (Apr 1, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am having a hard time comparing photos at various iso's between the two in real life around the house shots any suggestions that anyone has would be great on how to test this during my return period.
> ...


Sony is about the same size or smaller than canon and Sony has too many issues themselves. Just FYI.


----------



## Tracy Pinto (Apr 1, 2012)

Sounds like the 60D was just the right camera for you. You can now buy some new glass.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2012)

Tracy Pinto said:


> Sounds like the 60D was just the right camera for you. You can now buy some new glass.



... you are about the 10-20th person to make that statement. But if I'd ever have to work in a photo store: I now can somehow identify someone who doesn't want to take advice. Pitty I didn't sell him the 5d3 for my profit


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 1, 2012)

The difference between the car shots is staggering, but in order to be able to extract even more perceptual information from the photos, you have to use a program that has good noise reduction algorithms (Lightroom 4 is an example).


----------



## preppyak (Apr 1, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> I certainly hope so. I have a 60D and I shot flowers today at ISO 400. The results were noisy, it did not resolve details well, etc. I want a 5DIII if for no other reason than that I can shoot handheld at ISO 400 (or higher) without ugly noise.


Hmm, I shoot my 60D up to 800 and find the noise to not be an issue. Most of my stuff from yesterday was at ISO 400 with no noticeable noise.


Tracy Pinto said:


> Sounds like the 60D was just the right camera for you. You can now buy some new glass.


This would be really exciting news for me. I can think of a few lenses I'd love to have for $3500.


----------



## Otter (Apr 1, 2012)

The 60D is a good camera. I can't say how much of a difference you should see in image quality or if full frame is important to you along with the auto focus system ect. You should definitely see a difference in ISO performance. If none of this matters to you and you're really happy with your 60D, to me it seems like no brainer. Return it, save $3500 plus and get some great L Glass!!!!


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 1, 2012)

Otter said:


> Return it, save $3500 plus and get some great L Glass!!!!


A while back Digital Rev did an interesting comparison. Same money spent, more or less. The sent a Canon 1D Mark IV against a lowly Rebel, but the 1D4 had a kit lens and the Rebel had great L glass. The Rebel STOMPED the 1D4 into the ground. I mean smashed it.

So... $3500 buys a lot of great glass. Might I suggest a Canon 70-200/2.8 II and a 24-104/f4? Or maybe 3 killer primes?

Stomped.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 1, 2012)

I want to just clarify something. I either sell my 60d and 2 lenses for $2,100 which i have a buyer then pay the additional 2100 to upgrade or just spend $2100 on l glass and have my current gear continue to depreciate when i want to end up with ff anyway. Does that sway anyone's advice? Would u upgrade for the $2100?


----------



## DCM1024 (Apr 2, 2012)

It truly depends on what you want or need to do with your camera. If you need quality photos shot in low light with motion, get the 5d. Otherwise, keep the 60d and upgrade your glass. The 5d2 I mentioned in an earlier post belongs to my boyfriend, so I get to shoot with it if he isn't using it. I decided I couldn't afford the 5d2 plus appropriate high quality glass, so I purchased the 7d and 17-55 f2.8. It is doing a superb job for weddings, portrait, boudoir, fashion or anything else I point it at  I kept the Rebel as a backup. Quite frankly, my clients can't tell the difference. A mother of the bride that booked me last weekend mistook a photo that I shot in a Wal-mart restroom with an Olympus E-PM1 (budget mirrorless if you're not familiar with it) as being a wedding floral shot taken with one of my dslrs. Photography is not all about the gear. If your 60d meets your current needs, get some great l glass which will hold its value and be there when you do need to upgrade.


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Apr 2, 2012)

DarkKnightNine said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am having a hard time comparing photos at various iso's between the two in real life around the house shots any suggestions that anyone has would be great on how to test this during my return period. So far it has better color saturation and lower noise but it's still there. Maybe it's the kit lens but if so that's all I can afford right now. Ohh yeah and I do like the auto shutter speed you can set. Those who said it does not work just don't realize if the camera cannot shoot at your max set iso it will lower the shutter speed. That is a good thing. It's like people would want it not to work. Either way any good testing suggestions would be great. Also it seems like the 24-105 is really not that far of a zoom. I think if I keep it I will have to invest in a zoom before a prime.
> ...


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 2, 2012)

DCM1024 said:


> It truly depends on what you want or need to do with your camera. If you need quality photos shot in low light with motion, get the 5d. Otherwise, keep the 60d and upgrade your glass. The 5d2 I mentioned in an earlier post belongs to my boyfriend, so I get to shoot with it if he isn't using it. I decided I couldn't afford the 5d2 plus appropriate high quality glass, so I purchased the 7d and 17-55 f2.8. It is doing a superb job for weddings, portrait, boudoir, fashion or anything else I point it at  I kept the Rebel as a backup. Quite frankly, my clients can't tell the difference. A mother of the bride that booked me last weekend mistook a photo that I shot in a Wal-mart restroom with an Olympus E-PM1 (budget mirrorless if you're not familiar with it) as being a wedding floral shot taken with one of my dslrs. Photography is not all about the gear. If your 60d meets your current needs, get some great l glass which will hold its value and be there when you do need to upgrade.



Ok now I just shot low light in my front room of my family. The canon 60d was hard to get a good focus point on the eye with two active twins moving around and also I was shooting with the 17-55 in av at f5 since there was three people in the shot I wanted them all in focus. I feel 2.8 is too shallow. Anyway I was able to grab them with the 5d3 with more focus point options and the af expansion helps also. finally I can boost the iso comfortably and reduce the noise in lightroom and get shots that the 60d physically is incapable of unless I bring in more light like a speedlite which I try to avoid. I like natural light photo's. I feel the 5d3 gives a lot more to bring back and has a more accurate white balance in low light vs the 60d. I found myself doing a lot less adjustments but if adding glass is the consensus then I will. Everyone just kept saying I was wasting $4200 but actually I will be able to get rid of the 60d and just pay $2,100 and with the lower light needs I was wondering if now was a good time since the 24-105 is turning out to be an ok lens and and it will fill a immediate need for lower noise higher iso performance. Either way I know that even shooting at 25,600 does not mean I don't need a flash but I could shoot at say 6400 with a lot less fill flash than 1600 on my 60d.


----------



## DCM1024 (Apr 2, 2012)

Good for you - you have made a decision, so now go for it. I promise you that I would buy the 5d3 and appropriate lenses if I had the $$$


----------



## DCM1024 (Apr 2, 2012)

Good tests would be fashion runway shows, weddings, live performances at sundown, etc.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 2, 2012)

MarkB said:


> I have attached on shot showing how bad the vignetting is without the correction.



In an ironic twist, that _bad_ vignetting is one thing I love about my jump from a crop to a full frame. My new 24L's vignetting is severe and awesome.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 2, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> finally I can boost the iso comfortably and reduce the noise in lightroom and get shots that the 60d physically is incapable of unless I bring in more light like a speedlite which I try to avoid. I like natural light photo's.



When you use a flash skilfully, the light IS natural. 99% of people who claim to dislike flash just don't know how to use it. Adding light to a scene is one of the single most important skills you can learn as a photographer. Ever see the lights and reflectors on a Hollywood production? Do you think films would look better if they only used available light? 

Just don't point the flash at the subject. And don't point it straight up either. Point it up and behind you, over your shoulder, and use walls and ceilings as a giant soft box. Wonderful things can happen!


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 2, 2012)

unkbob said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > finally I can boost the iso comfortably and reduce the noise in lightroom and get shots that the 60d physically is incapable of unless I bring in more light like a speedlite which I try to avoid. I like natural light photo's.
> ...


Amen, brother. If your flash photos look like crap, you're not doing it right and you need to pick up a copy of the Speedliter's Handbook.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 2, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Amen, brother. If your flash photos look like crap, you're not doing it right and you need to pick up a copy of the Speedliter's Handbook.



Totally agree - that is why I so rarely shoot above 400iso

Taken in dark hall - 2 flash


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 2, 2012)

Yeah thats sound advice. I think i will get that book. Nice pic of the dog. I just don't like the colors being overblown with a speedlite. I also don't have the house for setting up multiple speedlite's because my kids would move or destroy them and it would just feel like a photo shoot. I just was thinking if the 5d3 was worth the extra $2100 for me or to just get another zoom like 70-200 f4is and a prime and work more on technique. I just love the extra edge the 5d has and it just feels so much better built. The af system is easier for my to hone in on a little face than te 60d. But thats not reason enough to spend $2100.


----------



## kballweg (Apr 2, 2012)

I have both, with the 60D destined to be my backup and lightweight street shooting body. The newer sensor EOS consumer bodies, the 7D/60D/600D/550D, are (as DRJLO pointed out) amazingly good; good enough that I think you shouldn't be able to see massive differences between casual shots. But...

My first day of shooting with Mk3 was disappointing until I started cropping in LR, and realized how small I could crop and still have it be sharper than the 60D un-cropped. I suspect a lot of "softness" people are complaining of on other threads is buyer's remorse from people who started with unrealistic expectation, and are talking first impressions without sorting all the variables. Like the fact that yesterday was a crap overcast day, and I wouldn't even have bothered taking the 60D out in such conditions, so no magical landscapes for me.

I love my 60D but the key differences that jumped out are how fast the Mk3 grabs focus, how "big" the images are with a minimal jump from the resolution my work flow is geared to, and how flexible the control layout is compared to the 60D (and I'm still learning the Mk3). That's a pocket full of nice for a first quick look.


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 2, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Nice pic of the dog. I just don't like the colors being overblown with a speedlite.



I feel similarly. While the dog shot is crisp, it screams moodless artificial light. The blue tint (especially in the eye) is particularly revolting my senses. The falloff of the light in the background is amplifying the artificial light look.

Using the on-camera flash is an art in itself.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 2, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I also don't have the house for setting up multiple speedlite's because my kids would move or destroy them and it would just feel like a photo shoot.



No, use one flash and keep it on your camera. Swivel the head. That's all you need. You don't even need a $400 model, you can buy a Yongnuo for a fraction of that and it will perform in much the same way.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 2, 2012)

I just picked up a 5d mkii (had a 7d) and I must say the difference is outstanding... Hugely noticeable. No longer do I need to avoid high ISOs. I'm really excited. On 7d, which from my understanding has the same sensor as the 60d (someone correct me if i'm wrong), I didn't like to shoot above 1600 or above 800 if I was shooting anything with fine detail. But on the 5d mkii I can happily shoot at 3200 and lose very little detail. If you don't notice a difference between the 60d and the 5d mkiii, then there is an issue!


----------



## unkbob (Apr 2, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> @unkbob, love the shots. The second one looks like a promo shot from a cruise line (in a good way).



Ha! Thanks  Yeah it's a cheesy shot but it was natural and spur of the moment so I like it despite the cheese.

FWIW The little girl dancing was shot at ISO 1600, the other two were ISO 3200, all on 5D2. Of course the higher the ISO, the more powerful the flash becomes, which opens up some real possibilities with the mark iii and bounced flash.


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 2, 2012)

unkbob said:


> FWIW The little girl dancing was shot at ISO 1600, the other two were ISO 3200, all on 5D2. Of course the higher the ISO, the more powerful the flash becomes, which opens up some real possibilities with the mark iii and bounced flash.



Have you used some color gels / filters (for the first two shots)?


----------



## unkbob (Apr 2, 2012)

NotABunny said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW The little girl dancing was shot at ISO 1600, the other two were ISO 3200, all on 5D2. Of course the higher the ISO, the more powerful the flash becomes, which opens up some real possibilities with the mark iii and bounced flash.
> ...



I often use CTO gels so the flash light is not too cold compared to the ambient light, but I don't use other colours. Can't remember for sure what I used here but I probably had 1/4 or 1/2 CTO on the flash. The funky colours in the background are the DJ lights.


----------

