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

[Tijn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Tijn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.