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

[Tijn]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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	Small | Large

[Tijn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :-p

... 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]

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]

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]

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.