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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
 
Upvote 0
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".
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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 :-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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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 :-)
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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:
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3617.jpg
    IMG_3617.jpg
    848 KB · Views: 798
  • IMG_7383.jpg
    IMG_7383.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 788
  • IMG_4150_L.jpg
    IMG_4150_L.jpg
    927.1 KB · Views: 784
  • IMG_6715.jpg
    IMG_6715.jpg
    773.5 KB · Views: 762
Upvote 0
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 :-)
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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...
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.