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

[KKCFamilyman]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[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

 

[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.