# Have Canon 60d and want advice on next upgrade for my needs



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 17, 2012)

I have a 60d, 17-55 2.8 efs, 15-85mm, 430exII.

I need more focus points for taking pictures of my young active twins in the house and on vacations. I just want the best quality pictures and was thinking of either getting the 7d or the new 5d mkiii. I need more focus points and better low light iso. I like natural light pics not everything to have flash. If I bought the 5d I would only be able to get one lens and probably the kit but is it too much for me or would anyone have any other suggestions. I am not pro but seem to be the family photographer at all events and parties. I just want to make sure the 5d is the right move or a new lens. (budget within reason under $5k)


----------



## Tijn (Mar 17, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I have a 60d, 17-55 2.8 efs, 15-85mm, 430exII.
> 
> I need more focus points for taking pictures of my young active twins in the house and on vacations. I just want the best quality pictures and was thinking of either getting the 7d or the new 5d mkiii. I need more focus points and better low light iso. I like natural light pics not everything to have flash. If I bought the 5d I would only be able to get one lens and probably the kit but is it too much for me or would anyone have any other suggestions. I am not pro but seem to be the family photographer at all events and parties. I just want to make sure the 5d is the right move or a new lens. (budget within reason under $5k)



For low light performance, the 7D is the exact same as your current 60D. Any _significant_ upgrade will have to be the full-frame.

The first 'current' full-frame body is the 5D mk2, it has significantly better noise performance than the 60D but its autofocus isn't all that great. Then comes the 5D mk3, which has slightly better noise performance than the 5D mk2 and vastly better autofocus. And more fps. And weathersealing. And so on.
But it's new, and pricy, and since pre-orders are clogged up it might be a while until you can get your hands on one.

But since you like natural light, I'd definately recommend in favor of going full-frame and against going for another crop camera (you're already pretty much at the top of the crop camera lineup with your 60D, anyways). Since you seem to have upgrade demands in the AF compartment, then, I'd recommend against the 5d mk2 and in favor of the 5d mk3. It's a bit of a punch price-wise, but you'll not need (nor be able) to significantly upgrade your camera for at least another 3 years, and even after that, your camera will still work the wonders it will work now.

Also, you'll have to buy new lenses, because your old lenses only work on crop bodies (the 17-55 and the 15-85). A good thing is that a full-frame camera gives more background blur at similar aperture and framing. Therefore the blur you got from your 17-55 can be bested with the f/4 (kit)lens on the full-frame camera. As such you only really need one lens to fill most of the range you used with your old two lenses, and that same lens also happens to be the kit lens with the 5d mk2 and 5d mk 3 (namely the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS lens). Buying it in the kit, it's very well worth its price.

The f/4 is a step backward in low light performance, but the body is two or three steps forwards. You still end up with a significant increase.

For real low-light shooting I'd recommend you get an extra large-aperture lens. The 50mm f/1.4 is affordable and very nice.

So then you'd be looking at a 5D mk3 with 61 focus points with a 24-105 f/4L kit lens for about $4300 total, and then a 50mm f/1.4 for $380... Though you'd still be lacking a lens in the tele compartment (which is nice to have for outings). A great choice lens in that range is the 70-300L IS; a very new, relatively compact and extremely sharp lens with a nice wide reach. Budget wise that'd no longer be under $5000 though (in total). Unless you hadn't yet included the money you can get back from selling the 60D and the two very nice lenses (which do still have decent value even if re-selling). Those together should easily sell for the price of a new 70-300L lens, and then some.


----------



## GMan (Mar 17, 2012)

Keep the 60D with the 17-55 2.8. This is really a fantastic low light combination for kids and school activities. Don't be afraid of ISO 3200. Look into NoiseNinja, great software to clean up the noise.

If you haven't already done so, for action, get use to using just the center focus point and AI Servo focusing. Also, try back button focusing (Google “canon back button focus”).

Add a 7D body and a 70-200 2.8L IS II USM – an ideal combo for young active kids including indoor sports at school. The 7D gives you the option of “expanding” the center focus point to use surround points to assist in tracking. The dual processors also help.

Also add a 35 2.0. Sharp at 2.0 on crop-sensors bodies, relatively cheap (at around $330) and handy for tougher low light conditions.

Two bodies, two zooms covering 17mm to 200mm, all at 2.8 and sharp from corner-to-corner, are tough to beat for covering low light events. Now the only problem is carrying all that gear. (Consider ThinkTank Digital Holsters, #20 and #30. )


----------



## Terry Rogers (Mar 17, 2012)

Tijn said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 60d, 17-55 2.8 efs, 15-85mm, 430exII.
> ...



I agree. I suspect you would be significantly happier with the 5diii and kit 24 - 105 lens than your current setup. Add the 50mm 1.4 or 35mm 2.0 and you're golden. The 85mm 1.8 is also a great option as a secondary lens, if not now, in a year or two. The 85 1.8 would be great to capture your kids in school plays and stuff like that. Alternatively, the 70 - 200 f/4 non-is would be perfect for capturing your kids in any sports activities outside (and as you probably know is extremely affordable for the amount and quality of lens you get. 
With the 5diii kit, you would only loose 30mm on the long end and retain the same short end focal length. Once you have your 5diii kit in hand, you could sell your 60d and two ef-s lenses for $1600 - $2000 depending on how quickly you wanted to get rid of them. If all the accounts I've read are accurate, you will be blown away upgrading from 60d to 5diii and will not likely want to upgrade again for many many years.
Good luck on your decision.


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 17, 2012)

As the proud owner of a 24-105L I highly recommend it. It sounds like your needs are better satisfied by a fullframe body.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 17, 2012)

thanks for the suggestions. i think the only logical step is the 5d3 kit and 50 1.4 prime. 
yes i will be selling my current gear just to soften the financial blow. The question is will this dramatically improve my noise levels and be the best for a non pro? I do want the camera but want to make sure it will cover my needs for awhile and not regret it when the 7d mkii comes out. Finally will that setup be good for a family trip to disney? Also one more thing. I was hoping it would require less post work than my current set-up?


----------



## kwwalla (Mar 17, 2012)

Personally, I don't see any reason why you need to spend the extra $$$$ for the mark III when you can get buy with one of the most celebrated cameras of the decade (the 5D Mark II). I've shot weddings/events professionally with it for the last two years. Many people complain about its lackluster autofocus, but it's primarily in low light and can be overcome with an attached 403 or 580EX II with autofocus assist. Sure, it makes the camera a bit heavier, but when you think of the camera + flash + **(lense)** cost, you can come out way ahead by purchasing a 5DII + 580EXII + 24-70MM (mark I). Oh, and by the way, this is the combo that has brought me, and many others, much success over the last few years. I won't lie, I have a mark III pre-ordered, but my 5DII will stay in my arsenal and continue to serve me and my clients well into the future. Trust me, you won't be disappointed!


----------



## stabmasterasron (Mar 17, 2012)

i think you would be better served getting more glass. You camera body is fine. For pics of kids around the house, no need to get a 5dmkiii. Like killing an ant with a nuclear warhead. First try getting some fast primes. Then try a 70-200 2.8 zoom. Rent them to see if you like them and if they fit your needs. If you try these lenses out and they still are not making you happy, then take a photography course because it isn't the equipment holding you back. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, then fine, get the 5dmkiii - at least you will look like a pro.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 17, 2012)

i want the 5d mkii but my concern is the metering 35 zone system and the af with the center pt being the only cross type sensitive at 2.8. i just feel if i'm going to make the leap why not for the 5d3 plus i like the 7d ergonomics it has like where the on\off is for example. I like that the af is sensitive at many fstops not just 2.8. i want the 5d2 for the price but is the quality that much better than my 60d for all the switching or would it be better to go 5d3 and not look back? I really appreciate everyone shelp here this is a hard decision for me. I do want to continue with expanding my skills. I love this stuff.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 17, 2012)

What prime would you suggest to start with? Would that be challenging chasing kids with a fixed focal length. My concern about the 70-200 2.8 is the weight and having little kids to watch and holding that would be a challenge. I would think if i went the ff route i would rent that for special occasions like my daughters ballet recital. I have thought about keeping my body and trying one of the new 24mm primes coming out along with the 24-70 mkii. Then going ff if that did not help. I of course would then start to sell off my efs lenses.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Mar 17, 2012)

i am in your same position, 2 young (very young) daughters. I have a digital rebel and have just recently sold my ef-s lenses. All i have left is a 50mm prime. I am currently trying to decide which way to go. 
Most of my photography is indoors. I have had, in the past, very expensive L zooms hanging around and guess what - when indoors, I find my 50mm 1.8 prime hanging on my camera most of the time. With moving kids, IS just doesn't get the job done sometimes - they are still moving fast and IS can't do anything about that.
For a crop sensor, indoors in low light I would suggest either the 35L, or the 28 1.8 ( i have rented the 35L a few times and love the perspective and low light ability).
50mm is OK on crop. i would not think of it as a general purpose lens on crop, a little too long (indoors anyway). Something in the 30mm range would be better for general purpose.
With good light, the 70-200 2.8L II is a miracle. Some of my best shots have been with this lens. Somehow the perspective is just brilliant. Hard to describe - you have to try it. 
Sneaker zooming with primes - not that bad. Only bad part is when you can't back up any further - this is why I don't recommend 50mm prime indoors - you can get some nice head and shoulders, but full body might be a problem.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 17, 2012)

I was considering the 35l but i figure if i leap ff then no more conversions just the focal length i intend plus the 50mm 1.4 is cheap and makes up for some of the body cost. I think if i did zoom i would get the 70-200 f4 is for the weight. Either way it is hard to make a decision when your trying to capture twins at the same time.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Mar 17, 2012)

Well, as i mentioned above, I am divested of all of my ef-s glass now and am also considering FF. But I am either not as well healed as you, or maybe just not willing to invest as much money in this hobby because I am considering a 5d mk1 (that is right, not a mistype, mk1, not mk2). I can pick up a used mk1 on craigslist for less than $1000. It doesn't have the advanced AF of the mk3, but I only use the center AF point anyway. Then yes, you are correct, a 50mm lens would be perfect perspective for me as well. Then I might wait and see how the reviews come out on the new Tamron 24-70 2.8.


----------



## Zdog (Mar 17, 2012)

I have to say that for family photography you have a fine rig as it stands. I doubt that you will see much if any improvement with a new body. That being said you do have to bond with your equipment and if you are not feeling it by all means upgrade. I would recommend buying the 50 1.4 and taking some classes or getting involved with photo meetups. The 50 will be an excellent portrait lens on the 60d and will give you time to see how the dslr landscape shakes out over the next several months.


----------



## bycostello (Mar 17, 2012)

you'd probably be better keeping your original kit and using the money for some training courses...


----------



## Tijn (Mar 17, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> thanks for the suggestions. i think the only logical step is the 5d3 kit and 50 1.4 prime.
> yes i will be selling my current gear just to soften the financial blow. The question is will this dramatically improve my noise levels and be the best for a non pro? I do want the camera but want to make sure it will cover my needs for awhile and not regret it when the 7d mkii comes out. Finally will that setup be good for a family trip to disney? Also one more thing. I was hoping it would require less post work than my current set-up?


Going to full-frame will do a couple of things. Most notably, noise levels will be reduced. That means that for example, ISO 800 on the full-frame camera will look much better (cleaner) than ISO 800 looked on your crop camera. You may be able to use ISO 12800 or even 25600 and get the same results as ISO 3200 would look on your 60D. For many people that's too much noise for large prints, but it's a pretty drastic difference. For regular pictures it's still manageably decent.

Another big change is the framing difference, but since you'll be getting all new lenses you won't notice that. (But if you had, say, a 70-200mm lens, it would be a totally different lens on a full-frame camera; suddenly it's not too tight for shoulder portraits any more.)

And then there's the AF. I personally only have a 60D as well, so I don't quite know how the AF on the 5D mk3 will feel; but I can only imagine. I did feel the difference between a 70-300mm non-L lens, and the 70-200 f/4L IS lens, for example. The latter is just insanely, stupidly fast with autofocus. Tracking with servo AF and 9 cross-type AF points on my current body is limited, only really reliable as long as the target is kept in the center. 61 AF points WITH up to date AF functionality would open up a whole new door. I'm guessing the change will be massive. Everyone was wooing for the 7D for its autofocus, and now they put it in a full-frame body with a lot of extra AF points (basically it's almost the 1D X-AF system. Really impressive.)

When the 7d mk2 comes out, it will have better noise performance than the 7D, but still quite a bit less than the recent full-frame cameras. It will have good autofocus, and pop-up flash, probably. It will not make you regret buying a 5D mk3. It might just make you regret it if you buy a mk2, though, because of its AF limitations.

Yes, it will be the definite best for a non pro. For at least three years I expect (not counting competition brands like Sony / Nikon. Nikon is currently 'on par', though). It will cover your needs for a while. I bought my 60D to upgrade a 350D without video functionality and so-so noise performance, but not because it would last me long. When I buy a 5D mk3 in one or two years, I expect it to last me quite a bit longer.



> I have thought about keeping my body and trying one of the new 24mm primes coming out along with the 24-70 mkii.


While that is a great and impressive lens, it's extremely expensive and may not be as "value-efficient" as the 5D mk3 (and that's even considering that thing is quite expensive). Especially when the latter is coupled with a cheap but very decent 50mm f/1.4 (tack sharp when squeezed to f/2).


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 18, 2012)

I agree that the iso performance that i am after will be greatly improved. Yeah i could get more glass and keep my 60d but I will eventually get good glass for the 5dmk3 it may just take a year or so. If i ever do any work for someone doen the road at least i will just need to rent a lens or two. I am still a little unsure but one thing this forum has helped me with is passing on the 7d and 5d2. I will either get glass or go ff with the 5d3. I wish there where more categories of shooters like me who care the most about trying to capture the family and have everone in focus, smiling, good exposure in all our adventures. Is that too much to ask? I was almost looking at the g1x for a pocket cam but did not find it that good when your used to dslr performance.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 18, 2012)

I recommend you get the Canon 50mm f/1.4 just to start and have some fun with. Hardly a large investment in comparison to the rest of the things you're considering, and it will open some new doors, and will stick with you on your migration to full-frame. On your 60D, it will make for a nice medium-tight portrait lens. When you finally switch to full-frame, the field of view of the 50mm lens will be much wider, making it a good lens for full body portraits.

You can play around with the low-light capabilities of that lens, and with the shallow depth of field it produces. At any rate it will make you want to play around more with your camera, and that's one of the other big things next to gear that will give you greater pictures. I personally just upgraded to a 60D with some better lenses (coming from a 350D with kitlens), and it put a lot of the fun and experimentation back into photography for me. From what I know now, I could have taken 50% of my new pictures with my old gear just as well (yes, only 50%, because I also shot at higher ISO's a lot - impossible with my old gear) - but primarily, my new quality stuff _inspired_ me to do more with what I got. Including post-processing, which I hardly did before as well. Now, having played around a lot with Lightroom (3), it's just amazing what I can do with the camera and it's a joy to try and make the best out of the pictures I take. I've been going through old pictures with Lightroom as well and I was able to enhance or even 'rescue' several pictures that are now among my all-time favorites.

I included some example shots. They're more examples of what Lightroom and the new drive to CREATE stuff did for me, than what my new camera did for me. Although the new camera has been the catalyst for this new drive. In my case, "just" a 60D 

First picture was with my new 60D, with only cropping and minor colour tweaks in Lightroom.

Second picture is from my old 350D, but with recent minor lightroom colour tweeks.

Third picture was taken with the new 60D again, but with strong backlight and slightly underexposed on the subject - which turned out to be good because I was able to recover those details while maintaining the most important part of the highlights.

The last picture is a "work in progress". It was a JPG shot with my old camera, auto metering, but by accident taken at -1 stop exposure compensation - ánd in strong back-light - causing it to be severely underexposed. The JPG accordingly also messed up the colours, and it's not as easy to fix as RAW files. I keep coming back to this picture because I leave it when I'm satisfied after some editing, but then when I come back to it after looking at other pictures, I'm dissatisfied again. It keeps coming out too dark or the colours somehow "unnatural"-looking. It will probably further improve, hopefully to the point that I'll be satisfied with it even after coming back to it later.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 18, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> For pics of kids around the house, no need to get a 5dmkiii. Like killing an ant with a nuclear warhead. First try getting some fast primes.


) .. the good thing about primes is that you learn how to frame a picture instead of standing right where you are and zoom your lens.



KKCFamilyman said:


> plus the 50mm 1.4 is cheap and makes up for some of the body cost.


... which is exactly what just about everybody is advising you *not* to do - but it's your money. And you'll need your money because you've got two (overlapping!) ef-s lenses which won't fit on full frame.

I tried the 50/1.4 and imho it is cheap for a reason, esp. in comparison to a good copy of the Sigma 1.4 on crop : crappy usm (micro, not ring type), old design and imho bad bokeh, not very sharp under f2. And most important: at f1.4 the depth of field is so thin you won't have much fun with the lens if you are not experienced an don't know exactly what you're doing.

So if as a result, you are shooting with f2.8+ anyway you keep your 17-55 lens, look at your pictures and how often you really used the open aperture. A 50mm on a crop body is nice for portraits, but imho too long for everyday shots - the crop equivalent would be a 35mm.



bycostello said:


> you'd probably be better keeping your original kit and using the money for some training courses...


I agree - do shoot a couple of ten thousand pictures first, postprocess them, learn from them, show them around at photography meetings and think again.



stabmasterasron said:


> If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, then fine, get the 5dmkiii - at least you will look like a pro.


No, you won't. You will look like a clueless amateur with too much money to people who know your gear and its cost, and they will smile deprecatively once you turn your back on them.

EDIT: @KKCFamilyman: watch this :-> Pro DSLR + Cheapo Lens vs "Cheapo" DSLR + Pro Lens


----------



## Tijn (Mar 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I tried the 50/1.4 and imho it is cheap for a reason: crappy usm (micro, not ring type), old design and imho bad bokeh, not very sharp under f2. And most important: at f1.4 the depth of field is so thin you won't have much fun with the lens if you are not experienced an don't know exactly what you're doing.


If f/1.4 is too shallow DOF, then there's no use spending over 4x as much money on the f/1.2, either. Also, if DOF at f/1.4 is too shallow to be fun unless experienced, then this lens being decently sharp only from f/2 onwards is not even a problem. And if he's not experienced, then the low price is a good thing, too. As the Dutch saying goes (yes, we have them, lol) : you gotta learn it (cycling) on an old bike.

That's why I'd recommend learning this kind of shallow DOF on a decent and good value lens (rather than a better but 4x as expensive one), and once you learn how to work it and if you start feeling limited by it, and you have money to spend, then consider upgrading.

The 50mm f/1.4 has soft haloing wide open but is very sharp from f/2 and onwards. At smaller apertures, it's sharper than the 50mm f/1.2L lens, even. Bokeh is not as good as the f/1.2, but only slightly so. Build quality is not L quality, but it's decent (unlike his 50mm f/1.8 plastic younger brother). Although it's micro AF, the focusing on the f/1.4 is said to be as good as or even _faster than_ the f/1.2L; except it's a bit more noisy. I really don't think that this lens is so bad that it would justify an overall bad review. It's very good value.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 18, 2012)

Tijn said:


> If f/1.4 is too shallow DOF, then there's no use spending over 4x as much money on the f/1.2, either.


Since you were quoting me - I certainly didn't recommend the f1.2, but basically the same thing you wrote: stay with a larger dof lens like f2.8+, because personally even that has a very thin dof. I got the 70-300L, and even at 5.6 shooting a bird that is not exactly right angle to the lens only part of the head or feathers is in focus...


----------



## elflord (Mar 18, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> i want the 5d mkii but my concern is the metering 35 zone system and the af with the center pt being the only cross type sensitive at 2.8. i just feel if i'm going to make the leap why not for the 5d3 plus i like the 7d ergonomics it has like where the on\off is for example. I like that the af is sensitive at many fstops not just 2.8. i want the 5d2 for the price but is the quality that much better than my 60d for all the switching or would it be better to go 5d3 and not look back? I really appreciate everyone shelp here this is a hard decision for me. I do want to continue with expanding my skills. I love this stuff.



What concerns do you have about the metering ? 

About the AF: the lenses are wide open when the camera is focusing even if you set it to f/11. So the high precision sensor should work with a fast lens (f/2.8 or faster) even if you stop down to f/11. 

More AF points might help outdoors but if you're taking available light pictures indoors, you will probably want to use the center AF point. When depth of field is very shallow (which it is if you're using a large aperture for an available light shot), it's not good enough to leave it to the camera to guess what you want to focus on.

About lenses: I'd recommend getting the 50mm f/1.4 whether or not you go full frame. It will really open up new possibilities.

Here are some shots I took with the 50mm f/1.4 on a Rebel XS:

http://flickr.com/gp/elflord1973/75ME67/



> I wish there where more categories of shooters like me who care the most about trying to capture the family and have everone in focus, smiling, good exposure in all our adventures. Is that too much to ask? I was almost looking at the g1x for a pocket cam but did not find it that good when your used to dslr performance.



That's pretty much what I do -- I'm generally the designated family photographer. By the way, I use a Panasonic GF2 as a "pocket camera".


----------



## elflord (Mar 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I tried the 50/1.4 and imho it is cheap for a reason, esp. in comparison to a good copy of the Sigma 1.4 on crop : crappy usm (micro, not ring type), old design and imho bad bokeh, not very sharp under f2. And most important: at f1.4 the depth of field is so thin you won't have much fun with the lens if you are not experienced an don't know exactly what you're doing.



For available light pictures indoors, you really need to learn to focus with shallow depth of field. 

I had plenty of fun with this lens, even as a complete beginner, even though it took time to get the hang of nailing the focus (see the flickr link which documents my early efforts). The shallow dof effect produces really stunning images and even some that aren't technically perfect come out looking quite good. During the learning stages, you might not nail the focus on every shot, but it will be fun. 

I recently loaned the lens to a friend who is neither very experienced nor an expert, and he had a lot of fun with the lens. I have no idea how good the pictures were as I didn't see them, but it was definitely fun.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 18, 2012)

elflord said:


> I recently loaned the lens to a friend who is neither very experienced nor an expert, and he had a lot of fun with the lens. I have no idea how good the pictures were as I didn't see them, but it was definitely fun.



Imho the actual *shooting* with a 1.4 lens is fun, but not viewing the results  ... the problem with the 60d (and most other bodies, I guess) is that the standard viewfinder screen is optimized for smaller apertures and with f2.8 or larger (see your manual...). The dof in the viewfinder appears *larger* than it is in reality. Thus, a scene looks ok while shooting and maybe on the small body lcd screen, too.

But when back @home and looking it full size on a larger screen, 1.4 and closer distance imho is for artistic effect and not your general purpose shots. Same goes for 2.8 macro and very close distance - the dof is just too thin.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Since you were quoting me - I certainly didn't recommend the f1.2, but basically the same thing you wrote: stay with a larger dof lens like f2.8+, because personally even that has a very thin dof. I got the 70-300L, and even at 5.6 shooting a bird that is not exactly right angle to the lens only part of the head or feathers is in focus...


That's largely due to the focal length.

For portraits, you generally use lenses with focal lengths shorter than 200mm (especially on a crop camera). To get a shallow depth of field there, larger apertures than f/5.6 are needed. At f/1.4 there will be very little of the face in focus, but that in itself can be a stunning effect for portraits. Also, it enables photography at lower light without requiring flash - something an f/2.8 lens would be less suited for unless coupled with a full-frame body.


----------



## elflord (Mar 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Imho the actual *shooting* with a 1.4 lens is fun, but not viewing the results  ...



It's subjective to some extent, but I had much more fun as a beginner viewing the results of the 50mm f/1.4 than the sharp but slow 15-85mm



> the problem with the 60d (and most other bodies, I guess) is that the standard viewfinder screen is optimized for smaller apertures and with f2.8 or larger (see your manual...). The dof in the viewfinder appears *larger* than it is in reality. Thus, a scene looks ok while shooting and maybe on the small body lcd screen, too.



I have the 5D Mk II with the EG-S now, and I find that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference unless I want to manually focus with the viewfinder which as you point out is pretty much impossible with a standard focusing screen. 



> But when back @home and looking it full size on a larger screen, 1.4 and closer distance imho is for artistic effect and not your general purpose shots. Same goes for 2.8 macro and very close distance - the dof is just too thin.



Yes, dof at f/1.4 is outlandishly thin close to minimum focus distance (whether using APS-C or FF), but becomes more manageable as subject distance increases and the extra stops really come in handy for indoor shots. f/2.8 often isn't fast enough.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 18, 2012)

elflord said:


> Yes, dof at f/1.4 is outlandishly thin close to minimum focus distance (whether using APS-C or FF), but becomes more manageable as subject distance increases and the extra stops really come in handy for indoor shots. f/2.8 often isn't fast enough.



... until sensor noise decreases with each now eos generation, and in a couple of years even shots @f2.8 will have 1/8000s and no noise in the dark 

... but for now, I partially agree with you: Until it broke its plastic casing, I carried my 50/1.8 in my pocket for public meetings and demonstrations, and it got ok pictures at extremely low light and fast movement e.g. of people running from the cops.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 18, 2012)

Thanks for all the feedback but I have refrained from the 50mm since it has too much zoom on my body. I need the wider angles. I just want to make sure that getting the 5d3 over my 60d will yield better results as I learn more. I plan on taking classes but my immediate need is better iso performance and feel ff and l lenses would withstand my abuse. The EFS line is just too much plastic. I take it in and out of my bag for every photo and its a pain because I am worried about its durability.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 18, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Thanks for all the feedback but I have refrained from the 50mm since it has too much zoom on my body. I need the wider angles. I just want to make sure that getting the 5d3 over my 60d will yield better results as I learn more. I plan on taking classes but my immediate need is better iso performance and feel ff and l lenses would withstand my abuse. The EFS line is just too much plastic. I take it in and out of my bag for every photo and its a pain because I am worried about its durability.


Just note that 50mm on a full-frame body is the equivalent framing of a 31mm lens on your crop body. In other words, on a full-frame camera it is "wider" and less tight than on a crop camera. Also note that "zooming with your feet" is a technique worth learning for getting more out of your photography, even if a prime lens feels limiting at first.

But I can understand that 50mm may be too tight for your preferences on your crop body, or even on a full-frame body. I personally use the 50mm end of my 17-50mm lens more than the wide end for the shots that I prefer most (which are portraits). That may of course be the complete opposite for you.

I'd still keep it in mind for when you have gone full-frame. But going full-frame with the 5d3 and included kit lens may be the best step for now, along with experimentation


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 18, 2012)

i would stay with my gear but wouldn't the new 5d3 produce all around better images with the kit 24-105 vs my 17-55 2.8? Eventually I will be getting the 24-70 II but probably not for a year or two. Right now cleaner images would be better. There are lots of times when flash will not help and I do not have the capacity to carry tons of lens and primes to cover all area's. I was just looking for a all in one solution and figured this was a starting point except adding lens as needed. But if the general concensus is to stay with what I have then where would anyone recommend for photo lessons? Time for me is an issue and would prefer web based or dvd's if available. I think regardless a shot with iso 6400 on my camera vs the 5d3 is like the difference between a shot with a dslr and a mobile phone. That to me is proof that its not just about skill but the camera's capabilities. Am I wrong here but the reason everyone on the web wants this model is because of it's IQ and high ISO capabilities. It even beat the nikon d800 and d4. I also like that when I take a quick shot of the kids I can take another and compare them on the LCD. See it's little things like that I can see a value you in that do not require a lesson to know I could use it. Also obviously when I want to just rely on jpeg processing this camera will blow away my 60d i'm sure. I do not have money to burn but I am taking a trip to California and disneyland and want to make a move now if any since I probably won't be returning for many years maybe when the 5d4 or 5d5 is out by then. I will still hold back if that is everyones opinion but I figured a lot of pro's are on here and could give me better advice than I could get at a local camera shop.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 18, 2012)

Just a small correction: The 5D mk3 it doesn't beat the Nikon D4. That's a professional camera costing $6000, shooting 11 fps and going up to ISO 204800 (which it achieves partially because of a smaller resolution of 16 megapixels).

For higher ISO values, it does seem to beat the Nikon D800, though.

I read here that you want to rely on in-camera JPG processing. Let me stress this point: *post-processing is worth doing*. Even if you're doing it to JPG's! But then, you might as well shoot RAW to begin with - you'll be able to recover more details (such as shadow tones) than are contained in the JPG file. Also, it's a lot of fun to do, because it's rewarding; you can put some time into your favorite pictures and they improve visibly.

The photos I posted above were all processed with lightroom. Some took very little time (the fox and the rain picture), some a bit more (the backlit boy) and some a lot (the "work in progress" one).

Let me show you how those pictures looked before processing, as out-of-camera JPG's:


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 18, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I will still hold back if that is everyones opinion but I figured a lot of pro's are on here and could give me better advice than I could get at a local camera shop.



 just because someone has a little more clue w/ gear than you doesn't make him/her a pro... a real pro probably wouldn't comment this because he/she would be busy earning money.

And the advice given at a local camera shop really depends on your connection to the people there - If they think you've much money to spend (as you seem to have) and you'll just visit them once your're lost, they'll tell you you'll get the best pictures out of the best (i.e. most expensive) gear. However, they won't have a hard time convincing you since you thought that anyway


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 18, 2012)

Ok well i do believe in good glass since moving up from the kit 18-135mm then getting the 15-85 then the 17-55 all have made great IQ improvements but I feel I have reached my ceiling and the ff would give me a new one anyone agree or disagree?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> i would stay with my gear but wouldn't the new 5d3 produce all around better images with the kit 24-105 vs my 17-55 2.8?



Absolutely. I have a 7D and 17-55mm, and although the 7D gets used extensively for birds/wildlife with a 100-400mm, and I kept the 17-55mm to bring along (IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom for APS-C), honestly since getting the 5DII I've used it almost exclusively for my family shooting, as well as travel, landscape, architecture, etc. 

My main issue with the 5DII is the AF system, so for things like my daughter's gymnastics (action in poor light), neither the 5DII nor the 7D are optimal (I pick the 7D because I'd rather have noisy and in focus than cleaner but OOF). The 5DIII AF is excellent, and the 24-105mm is a very versatile lens on FF (wider, longer, and shallower DoF on FF than the 17-55mm on APS-C), and you'll have 41 cross-type points on the 5DIII. 

So, I'd say get the kit, and also recommend the 85mm f/1.8 for portraits of your kids.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 18, 2012)

Agreed, ceiling goes up for as far as image-cleanness in the noise compartment is concerned (or in other words: similar ISO values are cleaner, and consequently the usable ISO range is significantly wider).

And anyone who denies that any up to date full-frame camera does not outperform a crop camera in that aspect is a liar.

Not knowing you or the pictures you shoot, I may or may not agree that you _have_ in fact reached your ceiling. But a FF upgrade will undeniably give you more headroom. Albeit an expensive one.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 18, 2012)

I know you cannot see my photos but they are good to me but when the time comes for those above iso 1600 shots and my speedlite is not handy or i cannot use flash then i feel i have hit my ceiling.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 18, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I know you cannot see my photos but they are good to me but when the time comes for those above iso 1600 shots and my speedlite is not handy or i cannot use flash then i feel i have hit my ceiling.



With the current 18mp sensor, in my experience iso 800 is the max. value that looks good to me. For anything above, exposure has to be spot-on from the start and there must be no need for brightening in post-processing. I absolutely try to avoid iso 1600 and above and up on my 60d.

However, you should look at your pictures and the lighting situation: Would 2-3 ev better iso noise help you, or is the light so dim that you'd need much more? Even full frame does not permit you to shoot in the complete dark, and anyone stating different is a liar as Tijn would say...


----------



## elflord (Mar 18, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Ok well i do believe in good glass since moving up from the kit 18-135mm then getting the 15-85 then the 17-55 all have made great IQ improvements but I feel I have reached my ceiling and the ff would give me a new one anyone agree or disagree?



It would give you a new one, but so would some faster lenses. The faster lenses would be a cheaper way to do it and you will need some new glass to move to full frame anyway.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 19, 2012)

Hey elford i would sell my entire kit to go the ff route. What faster glass are you referring to?


----------



## Tijn (Mar 19, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:



> Hey elford i would sell my entire kit to go the ff route. What faster glass are you referring to?


He meant keeping your current camera, not buying a full-frame camera, but instead buying "faster" ( = larger aperture) lenses so you can shoot in lower light anyways. Those are probably prime lenses because zoom lenses don't go lower than f/2.8, and you already have that as your fastest lens. So, he will be referring to primes such as the 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L and the 50mm f/1.4 (mentioned earlier) or f/1.2L.

Compared to your f/2.8 lens, f/1.4 is exactly 2 stops "faster" (it lets in 2x2 = 4 times as much light).

If the 5D mk3 is 1 stop better in noise performance than the 5D mk2, then the 5D mk3 would give you 3 stops increased light performance compared to your 60D at similar apertures. But because the kit lens is one stop slower (f/4 instead of f/2.8, a 1 stop difference), the effective speed difference is also 2 stops, or 4x as much effective light intake.

Advantages to the "glass" route: you'll have glass which will last you longer than a camera body. Your lenses will deliver top notch sharpness. You'll learn to zoom with your feet giving you more input into the photography process. It may be cheaper than the body depending on the lenses you would pick (I'm not going to look up the prices though).
Disadvantages to getting "glass": you'll need to carry around several lenses for different focal lengths, and switch them when you want to use a different focal length. Low light shooting forces you to use the aperture wide-open, which gives a very shallow depth of field, making it hard to keep the subject in focus (but producing very nice blurred-background pictures when you hit).

Advantages to the "ff body" route: higher usable ISO gives you low light abilities even with slower ( = smaller aperture) lenses, which makes it easier to be versatile (because you can use zoom lenses instead of prime lenses) and easier to keep the subjects in focus (more depth of field due to smaller apertures).
Disadvantages: a body will last you a good while but not forever. It's expensive, and re-sale value is probably a bit less than for decent lenses.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 19, 2012)

Thanks for that perspective. I think the latter option with the ff will serve me as far as I need to go eventually ending up with the 5d3, 24-70 II, 70-200 mkII and 24-105 for walkaround. Also a nice prime when I get an idea what focal lengths I like with that body. I still have kids and a wife that cannot stand me switching things all the time and taking multiple shots because I did not like the first one or I take bursts so I will have at least one keeper. I do realize that lessons are needed here but wouldn't that be better with a camera set-up I am going to keep for a while? I mean everything does not translate over because they have improved performance, different ergonomics, new features and so on. I am pretty sure if I make a move it will be with the 5d3 just because having all those primes actually costs more since I cannot sell all my old gear to help cover some of the cost. Also I do not have the time to change that many lenses. I will however invest in one prime if I do get the 5d3. I also would not want to shoot at 1.4 or 1.2 or even 2.0 since the DOF is razor thin and I want to take pics of two kids and sometimes the wife also and someone would be blurred out. Actually I think instead of a prime I will try the 70-200 f4 for $700. I bet that would offer the DOF I am after and would give me cheap nice starter telephoto.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 19, 2012)

70-200 f/4L will not produce immense amounts of background blur on your crop camera, except when you're in the tele range of that lens (which requires some distance to your subject). On a full-frame camera, that same lens will be a bit wider and blur the background a bit more, making it very useful for portraits. The 70-200 f/4L without IS is not quite as sharp as the IS version (which is twice as expensive), and not as sharp as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, which is about 4 times as expensive. But being an L lens, it's still really sharp with nice and quiet autofocus too - a good value L lens. Since that lens zooms internally, it's physically long whether you have it zoomed in or not; but it will take a beating because there are no external moving parts (other than switches).

The third picture I posted earlier (the backlit boy), by the way, was in fact taken with my 60D and 70-200 f/4L IS lens (the IS version, but you can compare background blur nonetheless), at 200mm and f/4, giving a good example of its background blur in the tele end. The first (fox) picture was taken with the same camera and lens at 135mm and f/4, and you can see that the background is blurred a lot less, because of the distance and the not-quite-tele range of the lens.


----------



## emag (Mar 19, 2012)

My $.02 - get some top quality glass (Fast Ls). Bump up the ISO. Shoot burst mode for more keepers. You're not shooting film, who cares if you lose 30% of your shots? If you really want that 5DIII......it's your money, no need to justify it to anyone who isn't paying for it. Buy lenses now; that 5DIII will still be around in two years, and cheaper. But then, maybe the 5DIV will be soooo much better..........


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 19, 2012)

I love that everyone says fast L glass. Unless I unload thousands of dollars on fast primes which would have to have a very shallow DOF then I will have the same low light problem. Just because I can take a pic at 1.2 (50L) vs my current 2.8 does not give me better low light. I actually shoot closer to f4-8 to bring more of my family in focus. That being said I need to be able to bump the iso from 800-3200 or even 6400 and still have a clean image. I realize that beyond that I will have to break out my speed lite but that is why I started looking at the FF 5d3.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 19, 2012)

Then the 5D mk3 is what you want, and what I'd recommend. It seems you now know enough to know what you want.  

The 24-105L kit lens on full-frame will give you approximately the same depth of field at f/4 as the 17-55 f/2.8 lens gave you at f/2.8 on your crop camera (at the same framing). It will zoom a bit wider, and a bit further than the 17-55 did. The body gives you 3 stops noise gain, f/4 is a one stop light loss, so effectively you can compare it to two stops increase with the same depth of field. If you're only shooting JPG without post-processing, you may even see up to 4 stops low-light gain compared to the in-camera JPG's of the 60D because the in-camera noise processing was said to be imroved as well (effectively 3 stops including the slower lens).

Fast glass would give you a 2-stop low-light increase but it would strongly reduce depth of field.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 19, 2012)

Thanks again for everyone's input. I look forward to the FF world of photography. If not I can acheive the shots I want at the expense of PP, Noise and more lighting efforts (speedlites). I know a FF will not answer all my needs but I figure it should fix some of them. Now I just need a more portable bridge camera when I cannot bring my dslr. Anyone have any suggestions? I was thinking G1x or Sony nex5n but I am not sure of their quality. Is the S100 worth it?


----------



## Tijn (Mar 20, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Now I just need a more portable bridge camera when I cannot bring my dslr. Anyone have any suggestions? I was thinking G1x or Sony nex5n but I am not sure of their quality. Is the S100 worth it?


Not very familiar in that market, but... Here's an entertaining review on the G1x:
World's First Canon Powershot G1 X Hands-on Review

Punchline was, if I remember it correctly: decent image quality, but a bit of a hassle to control and it doesn't quite "point and shoot". I think it's focused on people that want the controls to _be there_, rather than automation and ease of use.


----------



## elflord (Mar 21, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Thanks again for everyone's input. I look forward to the FF world of photography. If not I can acheive the shots I want at the expense of PP, Noise and more lighting efforts (speedlites). I know a FF will not answer all my needs but I figure it should fix some of them. Now I just need a more portable bridge camera when I cannot bring my dslr. Anyone have any suggestions? I was thinking G1x or Sony nex5n but I am not sure of their quality. Is the S100 worth it?



Would recommend micro 4/3. This system has the most mature system of lenses, and because it's an older system, you can get previous generation bodies very cheap. For example, panasonic GF2 goes for about $250. The Sony has a great sensor, but the lens selection is really weak. Sony enthusiasts tend to adapt old manual focus lenses.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 25, 2012)

I think I will go for a S100 for a small bridge at least it shoots raw and is pocketable.


----------



## keithdog (Mar 31, 2012)

I am the grandfather of year-old twin boys who don't sit still and a 3-year-old. I have a Canon 60D and get excellent results. Autofocus is great. Grain is minimal, even going up to 6400 ISO. Heck. I've got to 12,800 and it isn't that bad. Shot some high school basketball for the newspaper I work for. Not normally on the photographic end. But I will say, keeping the shutter speed at 500th by adjusting ISO and aperture has made every picture I have taken come out sharp and in focus. Now maybe each picture wasn't framed perfectly, but that was my fault. Sometimes I would daydream and suddenly notice a good picture was coming at me. I would hoist camera to my face and shoot and if lucky had good results. Like I said, minimal grain and sharp every time. You are not a professional photographer. It isn't your livelihood. Maybe you have money to burn. But I wonder if you just need to hone your skills rather than looking for the answer with dollar bills. I've had other cameras but the 60D is by far the best. Maybe you should work with it a bit more before you spend thousands and get pretty much the same results.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 31, 2012)

keithdog said:


> Grain is minimal, even going up to 6400 ISO. Heck. I've got to 12,800 and it isn't that bad.



I'm happy that there's another happy 60d user around, welcome to the forum  ... but at the same time I have to mention that high iso with the current 18mp sensor is only usable with heavy noise reduction, and the resulting sharpness decrease only allows for small print sizes like web or newspaper.



keithdog said:


> Maybe you should work with it a bit more before you spend thousands and get pretty much the same results.



... and thanks for pointing this out again: spending money does not replace knowledge of one's gear.


----------

