# Upgrading from Canon 60D to 5D MkII: Help me decide!



## killswitch (Sep 5, 2012)

I have been shooting quite a lot with the 60D for past 1.5 years. I must say I enjoyed shooting with this body even though it is not considered stellar. However, I am tempted to upgrade to the 5D Mark II but holding back for few reasons:

1) Is the IQ between the 60D and 5D huge? Like in the out of camera RAW files. Also I do a bit of PP in Lightroom. 

2) I understand the ISO performance in the 5D is better than my 60D, but I tend to not go beyond 800 and try to stick to 100 as much as possible. Will I see substantial difference in ISO performance when shooting in ISO 800/1600. Or even at low ISO such as 100. 

3) Any idea if 60D's AF system is better than 5D Mark II or not? I shoot wildlife, but not too often though. Mostly landscape, portraits, street, still life.

4) I have a 24-70 f2/8L, how likely will I get better results when paired with a 5D MkII. Is there any focus microadjustment function in 5D MkII?

5) They say bokeh quality in full frames are better/creamier, if that's true is it really that noticeable?

6) How about the dynamic range in 5D?

Any other points I may have left out or should be aware of? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2012)

Out of Camera Raw files are seldom all that wonderful. You usually need to at least set the processing options in your image editor, and will likely want to tweak the images.
I have a 7D and a 5D MK II. The 5D MK II blows it away in every way but when I am focal length limited. My 7D is also good with my 100mm L macro. I also use my 7D for product photography, simply because the 15-85mm Zoom matches it well even at close distances.
I would not hesitate to snap up one of the 5D MK II bargains available.
Do be aware that its very likely that you will be wanting longer focal length lenses, all your lenses will suddenly appear to be much wider.


----------



## dmills (Sep 6, 2012)

I went from a 60D to a 5D3, but only after extensively testing the 5D2. The 5D2 is a great camera, but with the price of the 5D3 dropping (You can often find it for under $3k), I'd just recommend waiting until you can afford the 5D3. I still have my 60D to use as a backup camera, but wow, it feels like a toy when compared to the 5D3. I find myself not wanting to use it. 

Another advantage of the 5D3 is that, while you say you rarely use over 800ISO, with the 5D3, you can easily use 12,800 ISO. You mentioned that you do street shots. I can't stress enough how this will change your life for street photography. I have an 85L 1.2, and with 12,800 ISO, I can shoot photos in any condition that I've yet come across. You can handhold star pictures... (Not that you'd want to, but it will change the way you think about photography)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2012)

While the 5D MK III is a excellent camera, I sent mine back. The inability to see the AF points in dark rooms is a killer. I can see the much larger 7D AF points, but not the 5D MK III.
5D MK II's were available for under $1600 over labor day, and I bought a 2nd one after returning my 5D MK III thru CLP for $1407. 
If I catch one of the 5D MK III's that is through a authorized reseller for $2800, I'll probably go for it, but $3500 is too much.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 6, 2012)

That's a tough one, actually!

I have and regularly shoot landscape and other stuff with both the 60D and 5D2.

at iso 100 thru 400 they're very similar overall IQ but I actually often prefer the 60D's files over the 5D2's in most cases. I prefer the 5D2 when I want a bit more resolution but it's really quite close

The 60D output is ever so slightly noiser/grainier but it cleans up quite well in LR. It's low ISO noise is very decent and much better than the 5D2's patterned noise.

My 5D2 will often show faint banding noise in blue sky areas, my 60D does not. That's important to me when making big prints.

Their DR is nearly identical from 100 iso up to about 800 where the 5D2 starts to perform a little better.
5D2 is about stop better at higher ISO.

At lower iso the raw files are not really that different in quality, tho you'll have a few more MP to work with from the FF 5D2.
That said, I find I can push my 60D's files considerably more without annoying banding noise showing up in large shadow areas, I cannot push my 5d2 even half as much.

AF performance between the 2 is similar as far as I've experienced (landscapes don't move much)
My 60D has done reasonably well tracking AF for things like running dogs, never tried with the 5D2.

Bokeh on FF is almost a stop better than with a crop camera set to frame the same shot the same way... Not a big deal for most things, even portraits.

60D battery life is really good, 5d2 is a little less so.


As suggested, consider the 5D3 once the price drops to a more reasonable level. It's cleaned up its pattern noise a bit better than the 5d2 and has a number of other useful improvements over the 60D and 5D2.

Just my opinion but if I was a one camera guy right now, and knowing what I do now for the kind of shots I take, I wouldn't trade my 60D for a 5D2. And that's not even considering the articulating screen and more versatile video modes on the 60D if you use them.
LOVE my 60D with a 15-85mm on it. They're never apart.
5D2 is more of a love-hate for me. I keep it cuz I have a 70-200 f/2.8 L mk 2 which is just SO sharp and contrasty for full frame body image goodness. Also like it with the 50mm f/1.4

I'm hoping Canon brings out a low cost FF body with even better IQ (lower pattern noise) than the 5D3.

- -


killswitch said:


> I have been shooting quite a lot with the 60D for past 1.5 years. I must say I enjoyed shooting with this body even though it is not considered stellar. However, I am tempted to upgrade to the 5D Mark II but holding back for few reasons:
> 
> 1) Is the IQ between the 60D and 5D huge? Like in the out of camera RAW files. Also I do a bit of PP in Lightroom.
> 
> ...


----------



## Matthew19 (Sep 6, 2012)

full frame shots have that full frame "look" that you cant get with a crop sensor. It doesn't show in every situation, but its unmistakable when it does. I can't really put my finger on it though.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 6, 2012)

Matthew19 said:


> full frame shots have that full frame "look" that you cant get with a crop sensor. It doesn't show in every situation, but its unmistakable when it does. I can't really put my finger on it though.



I've been trying to ID that "certain something" in the FF look.
I think it may come down to the cleaner signal to noise of the FF bodies that have really shown it so far:
The 5Dc, the 1DS3. even the 5d2 at times.
It's hard to see but it can be perceptible in some images, I think by showing smoother tonal gradients where they're supposed to exist. There's also slight differences in the color response that may contribute as well as per-pixel sharpness. (old 40D also often has "the look")

But I don't find the 5D2 gives me "the look" often enough to make it a slam-dunk over the 60D in the same conditions.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 6, 2012)

killswitch said:


> 1) Is the IQ between the 60D and 5D huge? Like in the out of camera RAW files. Also I do a bit of PP in Lightroom.



Differences are small out of camera, and gone after processing, ISO 100-800. At 1600 and higher the 5D2 pulls ahead, though the 60D is still quite good. I consider 3200 the highest usable ISO on that crop sensor, 6400 on the 5D2 sensor.



> 2) I understand the ISO performance in the 5D is better than my 60D, but I tend to not go beyond 800 and try to stick to 100 as much as possible. Will I see substantial difference in ISO performance when shooting in ISO 800/1600. Or even at low ISO such as 100.



You start to see a difference that survives post processing at 1600. At 100 there is no difference.



> 3) Any idea if 60D's AF system is better than 5D Mark II or not? I shoot wildlife, but not too often though. Mostly landscape, portraits, street, still life.



About the same.



> 4) I have a 24-70 f2/8L, how likely will I get better results when paired with a 5D MkII. Is there any focus microadjustment function in 5D MkII?



The FL of that lens matches full frame better. Otherwise it's a wash.



> 5) They say bokeh quality in full frames are better/creamier, if that's true is it really that noticeable?



Bokeh (blur quality) is entirely a function of the lens. Blur amount is a function of DoF for detail near the plane of focus, and FF can provide more shallow DoF. For detail far away from the plane of focus, physical aperture size determines blur amount regardless of format.

So in certain situations FF will give you more blur. You will notice and appreciate this on your f/2.8 zoom. On fast primes FF generally gives DoF that is too thin, leaving you stopping down any way. I don't consider FF DoF to be an advantage with fast primes. It's too thin and when you stop down to compensate you lose the high ISO advantage. It just doesn't work out in the real world apart from studio portraits designed to show off super thin DoF instead of the model.



> 6) How about the dynamic range in 5D?



It's about a stop better.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 6, 2012)

*Technically*, the images will certainly be better but will still be dependent on your creativity if you're looking at it aesthetically. Upgrading is good but it also depends on your financial capability. It will still be better to build your lens list first before you upgrade to a better body and just keep on shooting. After you buy your lenses then I think it will be the best time to upgrade the body. The body by that time will either be a lot better than the current or a lot cheaper. Please remember that most of the time, it's the lenses that will limit your ability to take photos and not the camera body especially that it's 60D, still one of the newest camera body in Canon lineup.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 6, 2012)

I am in the exact same situation - 60d for 1.5 years, wanting a ff due to higher iso capability... but the op with his 24-70 really should get a ff for that, doesn't make much sense on a crop.



Aglet said:


> at iso 100 thru 400 they're
> The 60D output is ever so slightly noiser/grainier but it cleans up quite well in LR. It's low ISO noise is very decent and much better than the 5D2's patterned noise.


... but this statement and "only 1 stop more iso" really makes me think again :-( ... indeed the 60d files from iso 100-400 are very decent anyway, so no need for improvement here unless dynamic range would be much larger. The thing that is new to me is the banding problem with the 5d2, I didn't read that it's a problem to a larger extent yet.



Aglet said:


> at iso 100 thru 400 they're
> My 60D has done reasonably well tracking AF for things like running dogs, never tried with the 5D2.


Ugh, your standard certainly isn't very high - I find the servo af of the 60d next to unusable, with few af points and no customization it's purely luck to get a lock. *However* I shot a moving crowd last sunday with one shot af and my 70-300L, and the quality proved to very nice even @iso2000 when the pictures are downsized a bit. The problem only is the decreased dynamic range that quickly results in blown highlights when not using flash:

But all in all I'm somewhat hesitant towards the 5d2 because I just experienced again what a good af is worth in combination with the 6fps of the 60d, the 5d2 only has half of that. On the other hand, I'll keep my 60d anyway...



Aglet said:


> As suggested, consider the 5D3 once the price drops to a more reasonable level.


The *reasonable* problem has been discussed some in this forum  but now that the 5d3 gets magic lantern I'm hoping for the 5d3 to drop under $3000, too - that's really my absolute pain threshold for a camera body that drops in value in no time.


----------



## charliewphotos (Sep 6, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> While the 5D MK III is a excellent camera, I sent mine back. The inability to see the AF points in dark rooms is a killer. I can see the much larger 7D AF points, but not the 5D MK III.
> 5D MK II's were available for under $1600 over labor day, and I bought a 2nd one after returning my 5D MK III thru CLP for $1407.
> If I catch one of the 5D MK III's that is through a authorized reseller for $2800, I'll probably go for it, but $3500 is too much.



How bad are the AF in the dark? As I mostly shoot live music and I'm pretty much in the same place as I've had my 60D for about 1.5 years and want something that's going to perform better at ISO 1600+. My dilemma is save longer and get a mkiii or get a mkii with a new lens but if you can't see the AF points in the dark I'm thinking I may as well get the mkii.


----------



## SambalOelek (Sep 6, 2012)

killswitch said:


> Any other points I may have left out or should be aware of? Thanks in advance.



Here are my thoughts from having owned both these cameras at the same time, and using them more or less "side by side". Your mileage may vary.

Overall, I've found the 60D a bit more enjoyable to grab for a quick, informal, shoot, mainly because of the following:

Working Auto-ISO in M mode. 5D II Auto-ISO is fixed at 400 in M mode.
Better AWB. Indoors, the 60D will often hit the mark where the 5D II misses completely. Both have problems with the really yellow tungsten lights.
More sensitive peripheral AF points. Having 9 fully usable cross-type points reduces the need for focus-and-recompose on the 60D. The 5D II often struggles to lock with the outer points.
Built-in flash which can trigger Speedlites remotely.

However, for more "serious" work, I would take the 5D because of:

Overall better IQ, especially at high ISO. However, the difference is often negligible at ISO 100
AF Microadjustment. Not having this is my biggest pet peeve with the 60D
Increased creative potential wrt. depth of field on FF
Better viewfinder on 5D II.
Better selection of lenses in the 24-85mm range (considering the crop factor)
Overall better controls and construction on 5D II


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 6, 2012)

killswitch said:


> I have been shooting quite a lot with the 60D for past 1.5 years. I must say I enjoyed shooting with this body even though it is not considered stellar. However, I am tempted to upgrade to the 5D Mark II but holding back for few reasons:
> 
> 1) Is the IQ between the 60D and 5D huge? Like in the out of camera RAW files. Also I do a bit of PP in Lightroom.
> 
> ...



For the way you shoot, the 5D II won't be that much of difference compared to the 60D. I find that the 5D II IQ starts pulling away from crop cameras at 1600. I find that the 5D II at 3200 falls in between a crop camera's 800 and 1600 (closer to 1600). With a crop, 800 was my upper limit a lot of the time with 1600 as the max. Now, I'm much more willing to use 3200 on the 5D II.

The EF zoom lenses match full frame a lot better than crop. The 24-70 and 70-200s are a lot more flexible on FF. The 24-70 gets you to the WA range, and the 70 gets you down into short telephoto portrait ranges.

Yes, the 5D II has AFMA. The center point on the 5D II is REALLY good. It can AF lock at really low light levels where crop cameras fail.

FF cameras give you more options in how you shoot. They give you greater control over DOF (at the thinner end). If you like shooting with ambient light or landscape, then full frame is the way to go. FFs have less noise when the light is low due to its larger sensor area, and all the specialized glass (17 and 24 TS-Es, 24L II) have much more value on FF than on crop bodies. If you are focal length limited, the 60D's higher pixel density will give you an advantage.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 7, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Yes, the 5D II has AFMA. The center point on the 5D II is REALLY good. It can AF lock at really low light levels where crop cameras fail.



I concur, center AF on my 5D2 is outstanding and has provided accurate AF down to dim moonlight levels when using a 50mm f/1.4 on it.
The other thing it can do better than any other camera I've used (so far) is display a usable live-view image for manual focusing in seriously low light conditions where I can barely see myself.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 7, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Yes, the 5D II has AFMA.



Is the afma on the 5d2 the same as on the 5d3? I barely remember reading the 5d3 has more afma settings like for different zoom lengths or something?


----------



## Matthew19 (Sep 7, 2012)

I never got a shot to look like this on my t2i, I get them all the time with the 5d ii :


----------



## PeterJ (Sep 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the 5D II has AFMA.
> ...


The 5D3 (and 1DX) allow you to set different AFMA for the wide and telephone ends of a lens and presumably interpolate the in-between lenghs. Using Reikan FoCal I came up with an AFMA adjustment of 2 at 70mm and 6 at 200mm for a 70-200 IS II. When I had a 5D2 I only had one choice, so stuck with 200mm where I used the lens most for critical focus shots, it's nice to have the option to set both ends, but probably not too earth-shattering depending how much your lenses vary at both ends and what you shoot.


----------



## killswitch (Sep 7, 2012)

Great feedback as usual. It left me thinking, maybe save up and get the 5D mk iii later. Have they fixed black AF point issue, also how do I make sure I dont end up getting a body that has the light leak issue?



verysimplejason said:


> *Technically*, the images will certainly be better but will still be dependent on your creativity if you're looking at it aesthetically. Upgrading is good but it also depends on your financial capability. It will still be better to build your lens list first before you upgrade to a better body and just keep on shooting. After you buy your lenses then I think it will be the best time to upgrade the body. The body by that time will either be a lot better than the current or a lot cheaper. Please remember that most of the time, it's the lenses that will limit your ability to take photos and not the camera body especially that it's 60D, still one of the newest camera body in Canon lineup.



Yeah, I was going that route before deciding to change the body. I have noticed I really really struggle with reach even with crop body. I initially planned to get the Canon 70-200 f2.8L (non-IS) but held out thinking telephoto of this range would probably be better with IS (to reduce camera shake) given I avoid bumping up the ISO in my 60D to avoid grains/noise. I have the following lens at this time

1) Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 DX Pro
2) Canon 24-70mm f2.8L
3) Canon 50mm 1.8 II (which I am selling off as I barely use it)

So if end up not purchasing a new body, I will most likely eye 70-200 f2.8L. I see myself selling off the Tokina IF I do go for a full frame, even though that is by far my most favorite lens.  Maybe replace it with Canon 17-40 f4L?


----------



## killswitch (Sep 7, 2012)

Matthew19 said:


> I never got a shot to look like this on my t2i, I get them all the time with the 5d ii :



Great shot. Did you use any diffused flash to light the subject? Some folks experienced banding on their photos (visible when cropped 100%) taken with the 5D mk ii, I was wondering if you have ever faced such issue with your 5d mk ii?


----------



## Matthew19 (Sep 7, 2012)

killswitch said:


> Matthew19 said:
> 
> 
> > I never got a shot to look like this on my t2i, I get them all the time with the 5d ii :
> ...




Yes I bounced the flash from a wall behind me and then process the raw file in light room. I think the depth of field of the 5D just looks good, this was at f/8. I haven't noticed any banding unless with video due to the codec.


----------



## dstppy (Sep 7, 2012)

I have both and I have to say, I don't feel as though I love my 5DmkII as I should.

Reading through some of the points on this thread, I have my own thoughts about FF.

1) "feels like FF" - honestly, I want to say all of the bad things I've seen from lenses is more pronounced in FF (CA, barrel distortion, and vignetting) vs crop. I've been shooting with my 24-105 on the 5D and can't believe how much more correction is needed for vignetting -- maybe it's not that where people get the 'feel' from, but that's what I've seen

2) The iso difference on the 5D rocks hard, probably the best thing about it

3) Never seen banding myself

4) Nice shot for the dog, but if you go back and pick up a rebel, you'll be surprised what you can get out of 'lower end' cameras after you've been shooting a while. I'm still more comfortable with my 60D; these days, (aside from un-cooperative subjects or bystanders) I can't seem to get a bad shot.

5) Auto-Focus speed seems faster to me on the 60D, but I believe Neuro said at one point that it wasn't any faster than the 5D

Lastly, mk3 vs mk2, you're going to see a at BEST $1k difference in the bodies for some time (best price, I mean) . . . until you've shot on FF for a while, you may not see as much improvement for the price difference.

Personally, I've decided to start selling some gear and moving both bodies up a notch, but I have ALWAYS had a bad case of accessoritis and upgraditis. I get sick of cars 9 months into them, but I'm working on that.


----------



## mitchell3417 (Sep 7, 2012)

i truly believe the move to FF makes a huge difference. the iq is unquestionably better. in my opinion it takes your photography to a different level that is worth the money. it allows you to get shots you couldn't get before and that is worth an undefined amount


----------



## sb (Sep 7, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> While the 5D MK III is a excellent camera, I sent mine back. The inability to see the AF points in dark rooms is a killer. I can see the much larger 7D AF points, but not the 5D MK III.
> 5D MK II's were available for under $1600 over labor day, and I bought a 2nd one after returning my 5D MK III thru CLP for $1407.
> If I catch one of the 5D MK III's that is through a authorized reseller for $2800, I'll probably go for it, but $3500 is too much.



+1 

Yep I got a second Mk2 as well.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 7, 2012)

Matthew19 said:


> I never got a shot to look like this on my t2i, I get them all the time with the 5d ii :



For one thing, you'd only capture 62.5% of the image on your T2i. If you were 15 inches from the puppy with the 5Dii, then you have to be 24 inches away with the T2i to get the same composition. Then there is the IQ, which tends to be subjective.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 8, 2012)

Building your lenses (getting quality lenses) first for me is that path that should be taken first. The comment regarding lens imperfection becomes more pronounced in FF bodies is true which is the primary reason why moving to an FF body should be done last. Crossing my fingers though, I hope FF cameras become a lot cheaper than what it is now. With that, I hope Nikon and Sony do their best releasing cheap and good bodies. Hopefully this will force Canon to release cheaper bodies than 5D3.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 8, 2012)

Yeah, a 17-40 F4L will be your best UWA except if you really need a faster lens which I doubt if you're into landscape photography. Hold on to your 50mm 1.8 yet (unless you're planning to upgrade to 50 1.4 or 1.2L). This will be one of your most used focal length with full frame. It's also so cheap that you'll not regret keeping it. 



killswitch said:


> Great feedback as usual. It left me thinking, maybe save up and get the 5D mk iii later. Have they fixed black AF point issue, also how do I make sure I dont end up getting a body that has the light leak issue?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

