# Options for 60D upgrade/replacement?



## Act444 (Sep 26, 2012)

So, here I am with a 60D (great camera), and several lenses I've invested in over the period I've gotten into photography. While I've gotten great shots and achieved results with what I currently have, I do have some money saved up and I'm currently evaluating options, including perhaps stepping up to a better body. Ever since I've started, the ratio of money I've spent on bodies (T2i -> 60D) vs. lenses (24-105, 17-50 Tamron -> 17-55 2.8, 35 1.4, 70-200 f4 -> 70-200 2.8 II, 70-300 L, 85 1.8, 100 L Macro, 40 2.8 ) is obviously heavily biased in favor of the glass. (Also have a 580ex II flash unit) I've been starting to think about perhaps paying more attention to the other end to get the best IQ that I can. 

Couple of notes:

1) Hobbyist (not a pro, don't make $$ off this stuff so don't need top-performing equipment, nor do I have that kind of money to spend)
2) General photographer here (i.e. don't specialize in anything particular, although I'll tell you what I do NOT do: studio work/portraits, weddings, tripod work. Have done parties though, probably the closest thing to a wedding-type setting)

I've been debating whether to step up to FF - I have to say I've really become accustomed to and utilized the reach of APS-C on the 60D (and the T2i before it) with lenses like the 70-300L and I love how far back I can stand at events and still get nice close-up shots. I've shot some ice-skating performances - reach has come in handy there as well. On the flip side, when shooting an event (book) signing with the 60D and 70-200 2.8 I often find 70mm to be too long when I have an opportunity to get to the table, and I have to back up. However, the 200mm end is nice during the actual reading when I can be in the back of the room and still get closeups. And, at events where I have the 70-300 people on occasion will ask for group shots and 70 is too long on the 1.6x camera. There are times where I've been wanting more in terms of IQ, especially indoors where I dislike using flash and have to crank up ISO. Also, outdoor landscape shots (even with a quality lens like the 24-105), while not bad, don't seem as sharp as they could be. I looked at some sample landscape shots from a 5D in a review the other day and was blown away at how much more detail was in the images. 

I've heard about this new 6D, and it got me thinking whether it is worth it. In many ways, though, it's not a TRUE upgrade to a 60D because it does step back in a few respects and step forward in others. The 5D3, OTOH, is a definite upgrade but after handling one yesterday at the store, although I was amazed and couldn't put the thing down, I'm wondering whether it is really a tad too much camera for what I do (coming from the 60D, it seems so complicated!). But, I feel like the 6D is the opposite- might leave me wanting just that little bit more, although I'm tempted to wait for a review first. As an aside, I've also been eyeing the new EOS M as an eventual replacement for my SD950IS P&S...want a capable compact camera to complement the DSLR and be able to get good shots in venues, etc.

So- what to do? This is something I might do over the next few weeks or months. There's this 6D...the prospect of a possible 7D Mark II next year, the 5D3 now (although a bit cost prohibitive, I CAN squeeze it out if I can get a good deal for under $3K). Only issue would be the 17-55 (only EF-S lens I have) which I'd have to give up for a 24-70 that is 2x the price...and no IS...although I would like to keep the 60D if I can as a 2nd body. 

You guys have helped me out before...I'd appreciate any thoughts, etc.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm in a very similar position. Very similar gear list and want to upgrade to a FF sensor. 6D looks like it almost fits the bill, 5D mkiii is pricey but awesome. I'm not a pro but I do shoot weddings (2nd shooter) occasionally, either video or stills. Mainly a hobby but I do get paid for some of my work. 

I think the 6D offers great value with the WiFi and GPS built in and WOULD be an upgrade for me as a 60D user BUT, I know I'd be missing out on some of the 5D mkIII specs. I think I'll get a 6D for it's value and save for a 5d mkIV whenever that's announced. There's no rush anyway. I'll keep my 60D as a second body and run it into the ground before I buy a 5D-series body. $3500 is just a little too much. My wife would kill me! Even if there was a great deal on a mkIII like the one a few weeks ago, $2750 is still a lot. I'll wait for the 6D price to come down to around $1700-1800 before I pick one up. That should help filter out any serious issues with the first few batches of the camera.


----------



## christianronnel (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm a 60D user, still am and I got the 5D3 about two months ago. The lenses I use are very similar to yours. Like you, I don't make money from photography. First off, I can definitely say that using 5D3 is much faster than the 60D. After you get use to the button layout, things are just much faster. I do wish they've added the leveling under the Q-menu. The viewfinder is very useful, I had to install a different focusing screen on the 60D to get the lines that are already available on the 5D3. The focusing speed and the focusing points are priceless!

Just to let you know, that with the 5D3 I noticed that some lenses that are very sharp on the 60D were softer on the edges. But you really need to pixel peep. The lenses that I noticed this are 70-300L and the 24-70L

I don't think you'll need the 24-70 if you already have the 24-105. The 24-105 would be a great walk-around lens for the 5D3.

Using the 70-200II on the 5D3 seems more balanced and I don't get that narrow feeling when using it. When I used the two cameras in combination, I have the 24-70 on the 60D and the 70-200II on the 5D3. I used to have a Sigma 17-50/2.8 that I traded to get the 24-70 because I need something wider for the full frame. With your current lenses, the 17-55 on 60D and the 70-200II or the 70-300L on the 5D3 would be a good combo. I also need to mention that I don't like the images from the 70-300L on 5D3 so I tend to stick that lens on the 60D, where the images I get are tack sharp from edge to edge.

Now that I have the 5D3 I wish I have the 7D for speed. Although I really like the articulating screen of the 60D as I tend to shoot from lower angles for landscape. This is something I really wish the 5D3 have. With regards to the 6D, I agree with you that it doesn't seem much of an upgrade. I think I would rather get the 7D or the 5D2 to get more value for the money. If I ended up converting the 60D for IR work, then I would get a 7D for the 2nd body. But that'll have to wait until after I get the 16-35LII or the rumored 14-24L.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 26, 2012)

christianronnel said:


> Just to let you know, that with the 5D3 I noticed that some lenses that are very sharp on the 60D were softer on the edges. But you really need to pixel peep. The lenses that I noticed this are 70-300L and the 24-70L



Interesting. I really like the 70-300L on the 60D - it can be soft at times (especially near the 70mm end) but it really shines at the critical 300mm f5.6 setting. Is the key difference just softer edges?



> I don't think you'll need the 24-70 if you already have the 24-105. The 24-105 would be a great walk-around lens for the 5D3.



I already use the 24-105 as my walkaround on the 60D, but it is certainly unique in that sometimes it is not wide enough to get a whole scene in, yet it is also not quite long enough to isolate a subject in the near distance. But it is the best compromise lens IMO, and the variable apertures on the EF-S options (e.g. 15-85) killed them for me. I take it the 24-105 would give a much wider perspective on FF and thus would make it a somewhat more versatile lens. 

Actually, the reason I would want the 24-70 is for a replacement to my 17-55. I don't think I would use the 60D for wide shooting any more if I went FF, so that's why I would likely look to give it up. The f2.8 vs. f4 would likely make a difference for indoor social events, just like it did when I used the 70-200s. The 60D (if I choose to keep it) would exist solely for use with the 70-200 and 70-300 in order to get maximum reach out of those lenses.

Another lens in question (just thought of this) would be the 35 1.4. I LOVE this perspective on the 60D, very natural FOV. However, on a FF this would effectively become more of a wide angle. There's the question of whether that would suit my style (also considering that I might also later have the M with the 22mm lens which is the same perspective), or whether to trade it in for a 50 1.2 or even an 85. Could even help fund the new 24-70 along with the 17-55...



> With regards to the 6D, I agree with you that it doesn't seem much of an upgrade. I think I would rather get the 7D or the 5D2 to get more value for the money.



It's unfortunate...I didn't like the way everyone was trashing the 6D without so much as a preview, but that said, I was hoping for a little more based on the price point. If they priced it at $1500 (identical specs) it would be a much more attractive option. At $2100 it's almost tempting to look for deals on the 5D3...


----------



## christianronnel (Sep 26, 2012)

My copy of the 70-300L is very very sharp at 70mm till about 135-ish even on the 5D3. I start noticing the edge softness above 200mm even at f8-f11. The center frame sharpness is identical for both bodies. For your application at 300/5.6 the edges would be blurred anyway.

If you're not looking at the 24-70 for shallow depth of field and mainly just for low light, I think the 17-55 on 60D with IS is better. I'm not very stable so the slowest I can handhold is 1/100 even at 24mm so I really miss the image stabilization from the Sigma lens. After I acquired the 24-70L, I found out that Tamron makes a good 24-70 f2.8 with IS, it's too late for me but you might give it a consideration.

I haven't tested the 35L but if you like the 35/1.4 on the crop sensor, you'll definitely like it on full frame. I recently shot a charity event with the 24-70 mostly at that focal length and at 70mm. It is wide but not too wide as to cause distortion. You can really get close to your subject while also including some of the environment. I also have the 50/1.4 which I rarely used on the 60D because it's too narrow for most things and not as sharp as the 70-200II for portraiture. I use it a lot more now on the 5D3 because of it's size and weight and low light ability. The depth of field seems better too on the 5D3, it's smoother. It's almost useless at f1.4 though. I don't know why you would need an f1.2. I personally rarely use my lenses wide open. I prefer the look of f4-f5.6 for sharper portraits and just blur the background and I prefer to raise my ISO for low light. I'd rather have grainy photos than blurry/ out of focus ones, but I'm still learning, I've only been shooting for about a year so that might change. 

Oh I just remembered that my 24-70L has weird focus field effect which I only notice on the 5D3 but not on the 60D. Particularly at wider focal lengths, the center is very sharp but the edges are out of focus at any aperture. I don't think it's softness because if I focus using the edge focusing points, that edge will be very sharp while the other edge (and almost about a third of the frame) is still not in focus. I don't see this phenomenon on the 60D, which I even use the center focusing point before recomposing my shot. Perhaps I just need to learn how to use the lens properly or learn to "micro adjust" which we don't have on the 60D.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 26, 2012)

christianronnel said:


> My copy of the 70-300L is very very sharp at 70mm till about 135-ish even on the 5D3. I start noticing the edge softness above 200mm even at f8-f11. The center frame sharpness is identical for both bodies. For your application at 300/5.6 the edges would be blurred anyway.
> 
> If you're not looking at the 24-70 for shallow depth of field and mainly just for low light, I think the 17-55 on 60D with IS is better. I'm not very stable so the slowest I can handhold is 1/100 even at 24mm so I really miss the image stabilization from the Sigma lens. After I acquired the 24-70L, I found out that Tamron makes a good 24-70 f2.8 with IS, it's too late for me but you might give it a consideration.



Yeah, I looked at most of my shots from 200-300mm and (with a few exceptions) they are all attempting to isolate subjects from the background. So the edges are OOF anyway.

As for the 24-70, I currently use the 17-55 for wide perspective at social events (group shots, portraits from short length, candids) and where I find IS to come in most handy is when the lighting is dim and I'm forced to use a flash. Normally with regular shutter speeds the background comes out dark, but I can take advantage of IS to use much lower shutter speeds and try to get more of the background lit. I notice the colors come out richer when I do that as well. That is one perspective I will miss (unless there is another way to achieve this)...otherwise for most event shots I have to shoot 1/80 anyway or the person moves enough to become blurry. 



> I haven't tested the 35L but if you like the 35/1.4 on the crop sensor, you'll definitely like it on full frame. I recently shot a charity event with the 24-70 mostly at that focal length and at 70mm. It is wide but not too wide as to cause distortion. You can really get close to your subject while also including some of the environment. I also have the 50/1.4 which I rarely used on the 60D because it's too narrow for most things and not as sharp as the 70-200II for portraiture. I use it a lot more now on the 5D3 because of it's size and weight and low light ability. The depth of field seems better too on the 5D3, it's smoother. It's almost useless at f1.4 though. I don't know why you would need an f1.2. I personally rarely use my lenses wide open. I prefer the look of f4-f5.6 for sharper portraits and just blur the background and I prefer to raise my ISO for low light. I'd rather have grainy photos than blurry/ out of focus ones, but I'm still learning, I've only been shooting for about a year so that might change.



Isn't this a similar perspective to 24mm on the crop? Perhaps I'll look through my event photos and see how many I take at ~22-24mm setting. Often I tend to stick mostly to the ends (17mm good for group shots as long as folks aren't at the edge of the frame; 55mm good for head shots at close range). But the main appeal of the 35 1.4 is that it's the only ultra-fast lens in my collection. All others are 2.8 or slower. Without flash, I can shoot even in the darkest of places with it (color balance is another issue altogether, but shot is better than no shot). That is why I mentioned the 1.2 (I know the 1.4 is there, but I didn't like it even on a 1.6x camera due to softness and fringing at 1.4-2.8 )...but we'll see. Most sites seem to be unimpressed by it given its price premium, and I look at a few sample shots and wasn't astonished (although they were landscape shots in daylight, that wouldn't be my use for a lens like this)


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 26, 2012)

Act444 said:


> So, here I am with a 60D (great camera), and several lenses I've invested in over the period I've gotten into photography. While I've gotten great shots and achieved results with what I currently have, I do have some money saved up and I'm currently evaluating options, including perhaps stepping up to a better body. Ever since I've started, the ratio of money I've spent on bodies (T2i -> 60D) vs. lenses (24-105, 17-50 Tamron -> 17-55 2.8, 35 1.4, 70-200 f4 -> 70-200 2.8 II, 70-300 L, 85 1.8, 100 L Macro, 40 2.8 ) is obviously heavily biased in favor of the glass. (Also have a 580ex II flash unit) I've been starting to think about perhaps paying more attention to the other end to get the best IQ that I can.
> 
> Couple of notes:
> 
> ...



5D2 Perhaps? The 6D may not be worth the extra $$$ over the Mk2 for the uses you listed.


----------



## anden (Sep 26, 2012)

Just a few thoughts. The questions for me were, is the 60D/7D IQ good enough for me, and what's the price premium for going FF. I have been quite happy with my pictures so far and I therefore couldn't justify the kit premium of over $4000:

60D/10-22/17-55/50-150os is under $4000
6D/16-35/24-70/70-200II is over $8000

Additionally, the crop set has the slight bonus of smaller bulk and lower weight.

However you already have some good FF lenses and seem to photograph quite much so I can imagine the premium much easier to accept.

Btw, that 50-150os would seem to address one of your concerns.

I see myself getting FF in some future when the prices have gone down. Still can't get over this feeling that FF is the "real" digital successor to film photo which has given me so many fine photos even with simple cameras. But again, with today's price levels it isn't currently for me. One thing that could theoretically throw this plan out is if crop technology with 70D/7Dii or future crop successors would make an IQ leap jump to where FF is today.

More to your question, when it comes to electronics I personally often appreciate later generations of things. So the 6D certainly sounds like an attractive choise, after all having the main feature I would want. Given your type of photographing, which specific features would you really miss with it and how often in real life would them make your pictures worse?


----------



## Act444 (Sep 26, 2012)

anden said:


> ...So the 6D certainly sounds like an attractive choise, after all having the main feature I would want. Given your type of photographing, which specific features would you really miss with it and how often in real life would them make your pictures worse?



Exactly the question(s) I'm attempting to answer at the moment (and don't have the answers just yet). One thing people have really made a lot of noise about, it seems, is the AF. The 60D has 9 points, all cross-type, center point being extra sensitive w/lenses f2.8 or faster. Since I started with the T2i, which only had a center cross-type point (like this new 6D), I've gotten in the habit of always using the center point. But I HATED the AF on the T2i. One of the biggest reasons I upgraded relatively quickly, actually. All over the place and very unreliable- I wanted better AF. The 60D AF, while still far from perfect, is definitely better & much more consistent. I would hate to go back to a T2i-type focus system, personally. I guess only the tests (and field experience from users) will tell the story. To me, AF ability is the second most critical element of the camera (to IQ).

Another beef seems to be flash sync speed. When I shoot flash, I'm usually at 1/100 sec or lower (exceptions have been when I have the 70-200 and need faster to freeze action). The one time I could see running into the limit is perhaps, fill-flash for outdoor shots. Don't really do this often so it's not that big of a deal for me. Then there is the shutter speed limit of 1/4000 on the 6D vs. the 1/8000 on the 60D. I don't recall ever using a shutter speed above 1/4000 with the 60D but I remember hitting the limit a couple of times when I had the T2i (think I was using f1.8 outdoors or something). I suppose I could live with those limitations, but it still bugs me, spending $$$ on this level and having to compromise. Stuff to think about, I suppose.

My experience with the new EOS M camera, if I go for it, may determine how I proceed from here. (that is the camera I currently have my eyes on since I'll have nearly immediate uses for it). Perhaps that can serve my APS-C needs and I can step up to a FF DSLR for the serious stuff to get maximum IQ.


----------



## christianronnel (Sep 28, 2012)

@Act444:
I paid full price for my 5D3 and I think it's worth it. If you could get it at around 1800, then even better. The camera is truly worth the price tag. I think just like you, don't compromise then regretting it later. No room for buyer's remorse.

The AF on the 5D3 is fantastic particularly when combined with L lenses. At first I thought there's something wrong with my 5D3 when I half-press the shutter. it didn't seem like it did anything but then the picture would come out okay. I normally shoot with the beep turned off, so when I turned it on I was amazed by how quick the 24-70L focuses, split seconds. Noticeably faster than the 60D.

I never had a problem with the flash sync speed because 1/200 was the fastest I've used on my 60D anyway. I do miss the wireless flash control on 60D sometime. Now I have to stick a big and ugly PW to control flash. Certainly added to the cost too.

Just curious, if AF is 2nd most critical next to IQ, why do you think the EOS-M would be better than the T2i?



@Anden
I didn't immediately notice the IQ difference in IQ between 60D and 5D3 until I printed the images larger than 20x30, then it's real noticeable. I think if you don't print your stuff then you wouldn't see the IQ limitations of the crop sensor.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 28, 2012)

> Just curious, if AF is 2nd most critical next to IQ, why do you think the EOS-M would be better than the T2i?



Actually, that is fulfilling a different need (a need for something compact, yet high quality). I think the EOS M uses the hybrid live-view focus mode so I'd expect it to be more accurate, if a bit slower. I don't imagine it would be any slower than my P&S, which can already take a couple seconds in dark settings...but the IQ upgrade (and the additional photographic controls) would be welcome by me. 

As for the 5D3, went to play with one again at the store. Love it more and more. This time, actually got a decent lens (Sigma 50 1.4 I think) put on it. Ran some tests at high ISO and tested the AI Servo a bit. wow is all I can say. Up to 6400 perfectly usable. Even 12,800 is usable although quality degradation is visible. This alone would be a HUGE upgrade over the 60D which just squeaks by at 3200. Also, 5D photos appear much cleaner and more crisp when compared to my 60D (except for shots at ISO 12800 and 25600). 60D/APS-C has a more "digitized" look in comparison IMO. The Servo performance was just ok, perhaps even mildly disappointing- but I've seen how complicated the AF system is so perhaps have to spend time tuning it. The lens being 3rd-party might also have something to do with it. I bet/hope it would be better with Canon's L lenses. (As an aside, I ran into a really strange yellow banding issue I've never seen before, but apparently it was caused by the store's fluorescent lighting tubes)

Yeah, so if I can get a deal on the thing...might go for it. I've decided that EVENTUALLY it will get done (upgrade to FF)...but there are some lens changes that have to be made (give up 17-55 for 24-70, replace 35 with 50) and with the 5D3 price, can't afford to do it all at once. Looks like the 24-70 isn't even widely available yet anyway...store didn't have any, and haven't really found any on the net.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 28, 2012)

I started out with a 60D and bought mostly L glass hoping that canon wouldnt drag their feet about upgrading the 5D2. I bought the 5D3 as soon as it came out and love it. I would agree that the 70-200L 2.8 II is MUCH more useable on the 5D3. I rented it once for a project when I had the 5D2 and although a few random shots turned out exceptionally well and I could tell it was an awesome lens, the range was just awkward, soooo much better on the 5D3 I use it whenever I can. 

The 24-105L is such a great walk around lens on the 5D3. Just finished a tour of Cambridge. I couldnt use the 70-200L in almost any shots, but the 24-50mm range on the 24-105L was perfect. Personally I rarely use my 70-300L on the 5D3, but I keep it glued to the 60D for range shots.

The lowlight usability of the 5D3 is just nuts by comparison. With the 60D I was always trading slowing the shutter and opening the aperture to try and maintain a 100-800 iso. I checked my Aperture library and only have two keepers above 1600 iso from the 60D. With the 5D3 I dont even think about noise until I get to 12800. And after pixel peeping some keepers in the 12800-25600iso range, I have to say its not just the amount of noise...its the TYPE of noise. The noise in the 5D3 is soo much less distracting that the 60D. Cant emphasize that enough. The noise in the 5D3 typically looks more "artistic" than the 60D, much like film grain and less like the 60Ds "video camera" noise look.

I would also argue that the color balancing on the 5D3 is quite a bit better than the 60D. The metering is very good imo. Without adjustment in Av mode, it nailed exposure that I know the 60D would miss.

I agree the lack of a pop up sensor for remote flash activation is super annoying, which makes the 6D more attractive. I dont know if I would have popped the extra $1500 for the 5D3 over the 6D if I had had the choice. Almost all the features I mentioned above would be available in theory with the 6D. I guess it would come down to how much better the 5D3s AF is. I enjoy it vastly more than the 60D. When I go back to the 60D I feel quite handicapped.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 28, 2012)

Interesting. I agree that the 70-200 can be awkward (especially at the 70mm end) on the 60D...the shots it has enabled me to get, though, are just phenomenal. Love that lens! And it has good range for sports/action as well when you are right on the sidelines. I still think the lens is far too big/heavy for general walkaround use though. 70-300L is better for that. 



> The lowlight usability of the 5D3 is just nuts by comparison. With the 60D I was always trading slowing the shutter and opening the aperture to try and maintain a 100-800 iso. I checked my Aperture library and only have two keepers above 1600 iso from the 60D. With the 5D3 I dont even think about noise until I get to 12800. And after pixel peeping some keepers in the 12800-25600iso range, I have to say its not just the amount of noise...its the TYPE of noise. The noise in the 5D3 is soo much less distracting that the 60D. Cant emphasize that enough. The noise in the 5D3 typically looks more "artistic" than the 60D, much like film grain and less like the 60Ds "video camera" noise look.



Yup, just found out for myself yesterday after taking test shots on my memory card. Nothing short of amazing.

60D's (and T2i's) metering is often all over the place. 5D3 seemed to slightly underexpose (more or less consistently) when I tried it though?

The key to all this is that I think the biggest difference will come in amount of time spent in PP. I constantly have to adjust WB, exposure (minor), sharpness, and noise levels for shots. With the Raw files I took with the 5D I think only one of the ones that turned out needed adjustment. BIG difference.


----------



## FTb-n (Sep 29, 2012)

I was in a similar position with a 60D, the 70-200 f2.8L II, and the 17-55 f2.8. The 5D's are certainly tempting for their low light benefits. Since I do shoot candids at events with the 70-200 on a crop sensor and find that 70mm can be a bit long at times, the 5D (II or III) with the 70-200 would seem to be a great event combination.

But, with kids in school sports, I wanted to keep the reach of crop bodies so I added the 7D. It has the same sensor as the 60D, but its focus lock performance is fantastic. My in-focus success rate shooting figure skating with the 70-200 went from 80% with the 60D to 95% with the 7D. The AI Servo with focus expansion points makes a big difference.

I've also noticed that grab shots can be easier with the 7D because it locks in so quick. My only complaint with the body is that it lacks a locking mode dial. I generally prefer manual or AV mode, but sometimes end up grabbing a shot with it in bulb.

Two bodies are a must for me, I don't like changing lenses and often need the full range that the 17-55 and 70-200 zooms offer. After getting the 7D, I was tempted to trade the 60D in for a second 7D. But, I have renewed appreciation for the 60D when shooting people at events due to the flip out screen. Some mock it, but it has been quite handy for me.

The 7D is now available for $1087.20 from Canon's refurb store and it is again a temptation to trade in the 60D. But, I'll wait until the 70D/7DII. I'm hoping for improvements in low light noise levels.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 29, 2012)

I was actually quite amazed w/60D's AF performance at the last show, especially given the crappy show lighting the AF system had to deal with, with skaters constantly out of spotlight and all. My thinking is, if the 60D's basic 9-point system could handle that, I can only imagine what the advanced 5D/1DX focus system is capable of...implement this in a 7D2 and we'll be all set!

But I think for now the 60D does what I want it to do in terms of this type of use. I don't do it often, and I don't get paid so it's not a travesty if I miss a few shots. For events/general photography I would welcome the better IQ/high ISO performance of a FF camera. It would be nice to keep the 60D as well


----------



## Act444 (Oct 3, 2012)

Pulled the trigger on that 5D3 + 24-105 combo that was posted earlier. Hopefully all goes well and I'll have the new camera next week! Thanks for your comments. I can sell my copy of the lens and make up the difference. I also want the 24-70 (new one)...17-55 is on ebay, and the 35 might have to go too...we'll see.

Unfortunately the 24-70 they had at the store seemed to be meh compared to the one I played around with a couple of days ago, which was a WOW... so I'll wait for new ones. (QC issues for a $2K lens? Seriously??)


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 8, 2012)

I'm basically in the same boat. I started with an XS and upgraded to a 60D (which I love). I then upgrade the glass (50mm f/1.8 to a 50mm f/1.4; 18-55mm to a 24-105mm f/4L; 75-300mm to a 55-250mm to a 70-300mm to a 70-200mm f/4L USM to a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM) and throw in a macro 100mm f/2.8L in for good measure. 

And my 60D... it has a few more good years left in it (at the very least it is warrantied for another 1.5 years). So it definitely isn't an emergency to get something new, but I have $500 give or take in funds, and if I elected to sell my 60D I could probably get $600 or so for it. Or if I accidentally destroy it, I will get a credit of $900 or so to a retail store. Either way, it would mean that I could probably get a 70D at a decent price. But I'm not 100% sold that the 70D is going to be a sufficient upgrade to warrant getting a new body. 

I was waiting for news of the 6D... and I really not interested in that. If I wait long enough, maybe Canon will offer a 5D mkii for 1400 or so again (20% discount). Maybe they will discount the 6D refurb after a while to around $1000 (which I would jump on). Or Maybe the 5D mk iii will be discounted for a refurb (after another 6 months or so) for around $1800 which I would also be willing to jump on. 

Then I think, maybe it would be worth buying an older model Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II 16.7MP used from Amazon for around $1300 or so. Alternatively, the 1Ds mk iii is probably a bit more consistent with today's technology. Considering it both sold for around $6500 when it was launched, buying it at an 80% discount is pretty awesome. 

Seriously, how much could technology have advanced in 3 years. The 60D is about 2 years old, and the 1Ds is PRO gear. 

So like I said... I'm in the same boat. I know I don't want a 7D and I don't think I want the 70D. And I would only consider the 6D, 5D mkii and mkiii at very specific price points. So I'm not completely lost.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 8, 2012)

Also, with bodies, the resale value drops precipitously as evidenced by the 1DS. When I bought my 60D, the normal going rate was around $1200 or so. I picked it up at around $1000 and sold the 18-135 for around $300 so I paid around $700 or so. With my expectations of being able to sell it for around $600 (maybe), I basically used the camera body for 1 to 2 years for about $100. But I don't want to get a 5D mkiii for $2000 (if I'm lucky with the Canon loyalty program) and then only be able to sell it for $1500 after 2 to 3 years or so. 

It is actually easier to sell entry level bodies used than higher end gear.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 9, 2012)

My 5D showed up today. First impressions are very positive but still need to put it through the paces, dial in settings, learn the camera, etc.

ETA: This thing completely owns at high ISO...Wow.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 10, 2012)

Congrats on your new toy 

Based on personal experience not necessarily to do with photography:

If you hold back on buying the best out there, the regret of what you could have had will haunt you. The 6D might have been a great camera and I am sure amazing pictures will be taken with it, but the fact that you had considered it a step back from the 60D in some ways would always have been at the back of your mind. 
On the other hand, I am sure somehow or the other, some day the additional capabilities of the 5DIII will come handy and you'll pat yourself on the back.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 10, 2012)

Agreed...

I'm already enjoying the beefed-up AF, but that's coming from the 9-pt 60D (which has served me well more or less, mind you). The multiple focus points will allow much more freedom of composition rather than using the center point and cropping later like I've had to do with the T2i/60D (and what I probably would have had to keep doing with the 6D!).

I guess the only negative so far - while the 24-105 has become a much more versatile lens (24mm is actually wide! This is a huge difference over 1.6x!), the FF sensor exposes a big weakness in the lens that wasn't apparent before...it seems that corner sharpness is lacking a bit. Especially when using outer AF points, I could never get the area of focus truly sharp, even w/fast shutter speeds.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 10, 2012)

Act444 said:


> Agreed...
> 
> I'm already enjoying the beefed-up AF, but that's coming from the 9-pt 60D (which has served me well more or less, mind you). The multiple focus points will allow much more freedom of composition rather than using the center point and cropping later like I've had to do with the T2i/60D (and what I probably would have had to keep doing with the 6D!).
> 
> I guess the only negative so far - while the 24-105 has become a much more versatile lens (24mm is actually wide! This is a huge difference over 1.6x!), the FF sensor exposes a big weakness in the lens that wasn't apparent before...it seems that corner sharpness is lacking a bit. Especially when using outer AF points, I could never get the area of focus truly sharp, even w/fast shutter speeds.




One of my (many) obstacles in moving to FF. I really like my 17-55 on the 7D, and wasn't excited by the 24-105 on FF or APS-C. The 24-70II is be nice I am sure, but... :'(


----------



## Act444 (Oct 10, 2012)

I loved the 24-105 on APS-C as an outdoor walkaround though. However, its usefulness indoors was decreased due to a) the slow aperture and b) 24mm not being wide enough in small to medium size rooms. FF definitely takes care of b) and even to a lesser extent, a) due to cleaner high ISO shots, while introducing c) soft towards the edge of the frame. Then again, even on APS-C softness was sometimes apparent (especially when compared to the 100 macro, 35 1.4, etc.)

But...still have to test it out in the "real world". My testing has been so far limited to my dimly-lit apartment, so can't speak for much other than the high ISO performance ;D

I'm going to try to get my hands on that 24-70. My 17-55 is about to be sold quite soon...that's a tough lens to part with, but in the end, it's all in the aid of cleaner indoor/event shots.


----------



## christianronnel (Oct 10, 2012)

Act444 said:


> I loved the 24-105 on APS-C as an outdoor walkaround though. However, its usefulness indoors was decreased due to a) the slow aperture and b) 24mm not being wide enough in small to medium size rooms. FF definitely takes care of b) and even to a lesser extent, a) due to cleaner high ISO shots, while introducing c) soft towards the edge of the frame. Then again, even on APS-C softness was sometimes apparent (especially when compared to the 100 macro, 35 1.4, etc.)
> 
> But...still have to test it out in the "real world". My testing has been so far limited to my dimly-lit apartment, so can't speak for much other than the high ISO performance ;D
> 
> I'm going to try to get my hands on that 24-70. My 17-55 is about to be sold quite soon...that's a tough lens to part with, but in the end, it's all in the aid of cleaner indoor/event shots.



Congrats on acquiring the 5D3! Have you tried your 35/1.4 on it yet?

I was in the same situation as you when trying to find a FF zoom lens as sharp as my Sigma 17-50. I had both the 24-70 mk1 and 24-105. With the copies I tested, the 24-70 is sharper at f4 at all focal lengths so I ended up keeping it. One negative is that it is much larger and heavier than the 24-105. My suggestion, while you still have the 60D is to keep the 17-55 and for your 5D3, pick-up a 16-35 or another wide angle lens like 14L or 24L II first and supplement it with a 50/1.4 or 40mm (or your awesome 35L). The 16-35 will open up new creative outlets that you couldn't get before with the 60D and 24-105 or 17-55.

Btw, with the 24-70mk1, the 5d3's focusing points' usefulness really become apparent because you can't re-frame with that lens after focusing.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 10, 2012)

christianronnel said:


> Congrats on acquiring the 5D3! Have you tried your 35/1.4 on it yet?



Not on MY unit, but I was able to put it on a store demo unit about a week ago. To be quite honest I didn't really like the field of view on FF as much as I did on APS-C where I felt it was perfect (why I bought the lens in the first place). On FF it's a bit wide for me, prefer the FOV of 50mm. Problem is, I tried the 50 1.2 and it seemed to exhibit some backfocus at around 2.8 which I couldn't really seem to get rid of even after dialing in some AF correction quickly (and it screws up the other settings on top of that)...other than that I would certainly make the swap. I tried a used Sigma 50 1.4 which seemed great (apart from softness at 1.4), but I don't really wish to go 3rd party again and I would prefer a weather-sealed lens.





> I was in the same situation as you when trying to find a FF zoom lens as sharp as my Sigma 17-50. I had both the 24-70 mk1 and 24-105. With the copies I tested, the 24-70 is sharper at f4 at all focal lengths so I ended up keeping it. One negative is that it is much larger and heavier than the 24-105. My suggestion, while you still have the 60D is to keep the 17-55 and for your 5D3, pick-up a 16-35 or another wide angle lens like 14L or 24L II first and supplement it with a 50/1.4 or 40mm (or your awesome 35L). The 16-35 will open up new creative outlets that you couldn't get before with the 60D and 24-105 or 17-55.




I guess I could do that but it's really too late on the 17-55. It's in auction on ebay (and there have been bids) so it's going to end up going to the highest bidder. I intend on getting the new 24-70 II as a replacement for use on the 5D3, as soon as my local store gets some good copies in.

I would be interested in seeing how wide 16 or 17mm is on FF...not much of a wide-angle shooter here, not really my style, but might be interesting to play around. After the 5D purchase and the 24-70 that's about it for my current funds though...so wouldn't be able to afford 16-35 or 14 (at least not right away)...perhaps a used 17-40 might be an option though- but I've heard it's not that good?

Basically, I'm only keeping the 60D for two main reasons: a) getting maximum reach out of my 70-200 2.8 and 70-300L for sports & events that call for it and b) for use with the 40mm 2.8 as a backup camera/2nd body. When I get more $ again I'll think about possibly trading in for a used 7D (much closer to the 5D3 in terms of operation it seems). The 5D3 will become my main camera with various lenses like the 24-105, 24-70 (when I get it), 70-200 and 70-300. I might trade in the 35 for a 50. that'll likely do it in terms of lenses unless I can find good deals on perhaps a 17-40 or something.



> Btw, with the 24-70mk1, the 5d3's focusing points' usefulness really become apparent because you can't re-frame with that lens after focusing.



Why? Limited DOF?


----------

